Disposed

T.R.Sivasankaran v. the Banking Ombudsman

Kerala HC13 Nov 2013WP(C)/15468/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged exorbitant interest calculation by State Bank of India in a housing loan. Bank verified a computation error and proposed re-working figures. Court disposed of the writ petition, expressly reserving the questions on actual interest rate and dues for future determination.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner supplied with copies of exhibits and informed of the proceedings; petition disposed of subject to finalization by bank.

T.R.Sivasankaran Vs the Banking Ombudsman — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/22ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 15468 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.R.SIVASANKARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, VELIYEDATH HOUSE, SREEPADAM, KARAKKAD ROAD, WEST NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN,

¶11

O/O. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KERALA, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP & MAHI), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM-695 033.

¶12

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, GURUVAYUR BRANCH, GURUVAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686 602.

¶13

3. MAMMIYOOR DEVASWOM, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYUR P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 686 502,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WP(C).No. 15468 of 2013 (G)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDNET RESPECT OF THE LOAN OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 24.2.2006.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE EPTITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.3.2013 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OBO(T)NO.8108/20602/2012-13 DATED 8.4.2013 ISSUED BYT HE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶34

========================

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 15468 of 2013

¶36

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of November, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest calculated by the respondent Bank in fixing the liability is not in conformity with the agreed terms and that exorbitant amount is worked out and sought to be realised, which is under challenge.

¶39

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank submits on instructions that, the entire documents and proceedings have been verified and after scrutiny, it is revealed that there occurred some mistake in computing the interest rate of the housing loan availed by the petitioner. With reference to the instructions received from the Bank, the learned counsel submits that steps are being taken to re-work the figures and that the proceedings will be finalized within the shortest possible time. It is stated that the position will be let known to the petitioner, as to the actual amount, if at all any to be satisfied by the petitioner, and if

¶40

any excess remittance is there, it will set off against the further instalments. The submission is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of.

¶41

W.P.C. No.15468 of 2013 -2-

¶42

It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits and the questions raised by the petitioner with regard to the actual rate of interest and the amount actually due under the housing loan are left open.

¶43

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶44

kp/-

T.R.Sivasankaran v. the Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Sivasankaran v. the Banking Ombudsman

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

M/S.Sowil Ltd. through Its Secretary Vs Mr.Prabhakaran P.K.

Santhakumari Amma Vs Alex Joseph

Jidheesh Joshi Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Sainaba Vs State of Kerala

Usha Perinkatath Vs Tahasildar, Thalassery Taluk

Salim K.M. Vs District Collector, Trichur