Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
P.A.Santhi – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Madhubala
For the Respondent(s): Mr.A.Ilangovan, for R1 & 3

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous after one-time settlement granted and loan accounts closed.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner sought mandamus directing respondent bank regulator to order foreclosure via one-time settlement of Rs.16,00,000/- for specified loan accounts, following petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2022. Court noted respondent's submission that OTS application was granted, accounts closed, rendering no subsisting liability. Court found petitioner's claim resolved by closure. Second Paragraph: Core issue was whether regulator should enforce OTS despite lender's prior settlement. Ratio: Matter infructuous post-OTS acceptance and account closure, extinguishing petitioner's obligations. Third Paragraph:

Result: Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

Table of Content
1. prayer for rbi to enforce ots on loans. (Para 1)
2. ots granted, accounts closed, petition infructuous. (Para 2)

PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to pass an appropriate order against the 3rd respondent for foreclosure by receiving a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from petitioner as one time settlement in pertaining to the Loan Account No.1311820002389 and Loan Account Nos.1311880002391 maintained by the 3rd respondent in the light of this considering representation dated 25.03.2022 For Petitioner(s): Ms.R.Madhubala For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Ilangovan, for R1 & 3 R1 – No Appearance

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1^st respondent to pass an appropriate order against the 3rd respondent for foreclosure by receiving a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from petitioner as one time settlement in pertaining to the Loan Account No.1311820002389 and Loan Account Nos.1311880002391 maintained by the 3^rd respondent in the light of this considering representation dated 25.03.2022.

2. When this matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in this case, the petitioner’s application for OTS was considered and accordingly, granted. Pursuant to the same, both the loan accounts are closed. Hence, there is no liability on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, he would contend that the prayer in this petition has become infructuous.

3. In view of the above, it is clear that nothing survives in this petition.

Therefore, by recording the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No cost.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKRISHNAN RAMASAMY, JP.A.Santhi – AppellantVersusThe Regional Director Reserve Bank of India – RespondentWrit Petition

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous after one-time settlement granted and loan accounts closed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
P.A.Santhi – Appellant
Versus
The Regional Director Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
Writ Petition