Allowed

J H Prasanna Kumar v. Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd.

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024WP/1196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging RBI's communication rejecting a consumer complaint on grounds of pendency, which was factually incorrect as the matter was dismissed by Consumer Court earlier. Court set aside the communication and remitted it for reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 20.12.2023 set aside and matter remitted to RBI for reconsideration afresh within 3 months.

J H Prasanna Kumar Vs Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1196 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

J.H. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O. J.R. HANUMANTH RAO AGED 56 YEARS R/AT B006, AMITY HARMONY APTS CHANNA SANDRA BANGALORE-560 098.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI J.H. PRASANNA KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MUTHOOT MINI FINANCIER LTD. REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER NO.374/A, SBM COLONY BSK 1ST STAGE

¶13

BANGALORE-560 050.

¶14

Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NBFC DIVISION NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY A.G.M.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. KHUSHOO KAPOOR FOR SRI RAJESH VELLAKKAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SMT. MATHEW K.P.M. VARGHESE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RBI DATED 20.12.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ALONG WITH A

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶21

DIRECTION TO THE RBI TO ENSURE THAT THE GOLD PLEDGED IS REDELIVERED SAFELY TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶25

a) Set aside the order of the RBI dated 20.12.2023 vide Annexure-E along with a direction to the RBI to ensure that the gold pledged is redelivered safely to the petitioner by the respondent No.1.

¶26

b) Direct the respondent No.1 to adhere to covid moratorium in letter and spirit and collect only simple interest from March 2020 to August 2020 as may be decided by the Hon’ble Court.

¶27

c) The Hon’ble Court may be also pleased to give relief of interest from August 2020 till date in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravindra Vs. Central Bank of India.

¶28

d) Issue necessary direction to the RBI to regulate the gold loan interest of the NBFCs in line with the banking companies so that the petitioner is not subjected to predatory lending practice by gold loan companies in future.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶31

e) Pass such other orders and further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

Heard petitioner / party-in-person and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that despite the Consumer Complaint in CC.No.1046/2020 having been disposed of closed as long back as on 07.01.2023 itself, the respondent No.2 – RBI has proceeded to issue the impugned communication at Annexure – E dated 20.12.2023 which was subsequent to disposal of the aforesaid consumer complaint earlier on 07.01.2023. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though Consumer complaint had already been disposed of and was no longer subjudice before the Consumer Court, the respondent No.2 – RBI committed an error in rejecting to consider the complaint on the ground which was not maintainable since the matter was subjudice before the Consumer Court and as such, the impugned endorsement deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.2 – RBI for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶36

Per contra, respondent No.2 submits that as per the Ombudsman Scheme 2021 in particular Clause 10(2)(b)(ii), respondent No.2 – RBI is entitled to reject the complaint not only because the same was subjudice but also in the event the complaint had already been dismissed by the Consumer Court on merits and as such, the question of interfering the impugned endorsement does not arise in the facts of the instant case.

¶37

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the proceedings before the Consumer Court in CC.No.1046/2020 pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner came to an end as long back as 07.01.2023 subsequent to which date the matter was no longer subjudice before the Consumer Court. In this context, a perusal of the impugned endorsement will indicate that the sole reason for which the complaint of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 – RBI was by stating that the matter was subjudice which is factually incorrect as can be seen from the aforesaid material on record especially the disposal of the consumer complaint on 07.01.2023, which was prior to issuing the impugned endorsement / communication. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶39

impugned endorsement / communication and remit the matter back

¶40

to the respondent No.2 – RBI to reconsider the complaint of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.

¶41

Per contra, party-in-person also submits that the complaint before the Consumer Court only the respondent No.2 – RBI did not respond to the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in 2020.

¶42

In the result, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶45

(ii) The impugned communication / endorsement at

¶46

Annexure – E dated 20.12.2023 is hereby set aside,

¶47

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 – RBI for reconsideration of the claim / complaint of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.

¶48

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner – party-in-person to submit additional pleadings, documents before

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:19286 WP No. 1196 of 2024

¶51

the respondent No.2 – RBI who shall consider the same and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 3 months from today.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

J H Prasanna Kumar v. Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J H Prasanna Kumar v. Muthoot Mini Financier Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basavaraj Shivappa Yalival Vs State of Karnataka

Iranagouda Puttappa Puttappanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Bhavani Vs Bhatat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd.

Mrs Rajeshwari Vs Bank of India

M/S Vandana Alpyine Projects Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank

Sri K Nanjundappa Vs Assistant Commissioner