BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.(MD)No.20175 of 2021 M.Sudhakaran ... Petitioner Vs

1.The City Union Bank Limited, Represented through its Branch Manager, S.S.Colony Branch, Madurai.

2.The ECGC Limited, Represented by its Manager, NVS Towers, P.T. Rajan Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai 625 002.

3.Sri Durga Exports No.12, Rajam Nagar, Ponmeni, Madurai 625 016. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delist the petitioner’s name in ECGC Specific Approval List (SAL) based on the “No Objection Certificate” dated 30.05.2017 issued by the 1st respondent Bank.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankarapandian For R-1 : Mr.V.Karthikeyan For R-2 : Mr.V.P.Rajan

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to delist the name of the petitioner from the Specific Approval List (SAL) based on the No Objection Certificate that was given by the first respondent dated

30.05.2017.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent had availed of loan facilities from the first respondent Bank and the petitioner stood as a guarantor for this loan. The third respondent failed to repay the loan amount and the loan account was categorized as non performing asset. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the first respondent Bank and arrived at a one time settlement. Accordingly, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) to the first respondent Bank and the first respondent Bank received the sum on 10.03.2017 and released the property belonging to the petitioner. The first respondent also gave a letter dated 02.05.2017 stating that the delisting of the name of the petitioner from ECGC was under process. Ultimately, the No Objection Certificate was given on 30.05.2017. In spite of the No Objection Certificate given by the first respondent Bank, the second respondent was not acting upon the same and the name of the petitioner was not delisted from the SAL. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. The main ground that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had stood only as a guarantor and he had settled the entire amount that was due and payable by the third respondent and the property was also released and the first respondent had also granted a No Objection Certificate. In spite of the same, the second respondent was not acting upon the No Objection Certificate and has not delisted the name of the petitioner. Therefore, it was contended that a mandamus has to be issued to the second respondent to delist the name of the petitioner from the SAL.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable on the ground that the contract was only between the first respondent Bank and the second respondent and that there is absolutely no privity of contract between the petitioner and the second respondent. That apart, the learned counsel for the second respondent contended that the first respondent Bank had submitted the claim application in the year 2015 before the second respondent claiming for 75% of the principal amount on account of the default committed by the third respondent. The application made by the first respondent Bank was considered and the second respondent has also settled the claim of Rs.2,60,59,678/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Eight only) on 01.12.2016. In spite of the same, the first respondent had settled the dispute with the petitioner by receiving a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) and this information was not even shared with the second respondent. It was contended that the issue that is involved in