Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition as Withdrawn in Loan Cancellation Dispute — Petitioner Sought Cancellation of Loan Account and Return of Title Deeds. No adjudication on merits; petition withdrawn before hearing.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, V. Saraswathi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent, the Authorized Officer of the State Bank of India, Thirumangalam Branch, to consider her representation dated 12.09.2023. The representation sought cancellation of loan account No.13638159295, cancellation of the MOD (Memorandum of Deposit) entered between the petitioner and the respondent, and return of all original title deeds to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by the court. However, before the court could adjudicate the matter, the petitioner's counsel, Mr. N. Tamilmani, circulated a letter to the Registry dated 09.01.2025 seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition. The court, comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice A.D. Maria Clete, recorded the request and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The court made no order as to costs. The judgment does not discuss any legal issues or merits of the case, as the petition was withdrawn at the initial stage.

Headnote

A) Writ Law - Withdrawal of Petition - No Adjudication on Merits - The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, which was allowed by the court. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn without any order as to costs, and no merits were adjudicated. (Paras 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking cancellation of loan account and return of title deeds should be entertained.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of writ petition
  • No adjudication on merits
  • No order as to costs
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 192

W.P.(MD)No.26295 of 2023

2025-01-21

M.S.Ramesh, A.D.Maria Clete

Mr.N.Tamilmani (for petitioner), Mr.C.Deepak (for respondent)

V. Saraswathi

The Authorized Officer, State Bank of India, Thirumangalam Branch

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus to direct bank to consider representation for loan cancellation and return of title deeds.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider her representation dated 12.09.2023 for cancelling loan account No.13638159295, cancelling the MOD, and returning all original title deeds.

Filing Reason

Petitioner wanted the bank to cancel the loan account and return title deeds, and filed a representation which was not considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and dismissed it as withdrawn without adjudicating on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition, by circulating a letter to the Registry dated 09.01.2025. Recording the same, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

Procedural History

Petitioner filed writ petition on an unspecified date; on 21.01.2025, petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal via letter dated 09.01.2025; court dismissed as withdrawn.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appointment of Arbitrator in Construction Dispute Due to Respondent's Failure to Appoint Arbitrator. Failure to Respond to Notice Invoking Arbitration Constitutes Refusal to Appoint Under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conc...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as demand and acceptance of bribe not pr...