Petitioner challenged foreclosure charges levied by Axis Bank, relying on an RBI Circular. The Court held that the loan was a private contract lacking public duty element and dismissed the writ petition, leaving alternative remedies open.
Writ petition dismissed; alternative remedy left open for the petitioner to avail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 4754 of 2015 (T)
PETITIONER(S):
SUNEESH M.P., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PADMAKSHAN, MAKKALIKKAL HOUSE, KALLUVAYAL, MAVADI, SULTHA BATHERY.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYIDAM).
RESPONDENT(S):
1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND DEVELOPMENTS, CENTRAL OFFICE, 13TH FLOOR, NCOB, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH MARG, MUMBAI -400 001.
2. AXIS BANK,
REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, SULTHAN BATHERY BRANCH, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., PIN-673 020.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP MATHEW, SRI.JOSEPH C.VARGHESE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 4754 of 2015 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.P(C). No.4754 of 2015
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with the foreclosure charges stipulated by the Bank as per Ext.P1 agreement. The petitioner's contention is that, the Reserve Bank of India Circular, produced at Ext.P4, would interdict the Bank from levying any such foreclosure charges, on the loan taken by the petitioner.
Bank however would contend that the Circular at Ext.P4 is not applicable to the particular loan. The learned counsel would specifically point out to Ext.P2 sanction, which indicates the loan to be an 'agricultural cash credit' and not a 'term loan'. A reading at Ext.P1 would indicate that the petitioner was granted an agricultural cash credit, having limit of Rupees Thirty lakhs. A 'cash credit' unlike a 'term loan' is a facility providing debit to the
WP(C) No.4754 of 2015
2
account to the extent of the limit sanctioned by the Bank. On crossing the limit, deposit could be made and again amounts drawn to the extent sanctioned. A 'term loan', on the other hand, is a disbursal of a specific amount, which has to be repaid within a specified period. In such circumstances, Ext.P4 would not be applicable to the loan availed of by the petitioner.
on Irrigation and Drainage and others [(2015) 4 SCC 670].
WP(C) No.4754 of 2015
3
In view of the above reasoning, this Court would decline the exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and any alternative remedy availed of by the petitioner would not be governed by the observations made herein, which are merely prima facie to decline exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed, leaving open such remedy.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
sp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked to challenge foreclosure charges stipulated in a private loan agreement.
Whether the RBI Circular is applicable to an agricultural cash credit facility classified as a term loan in the sanction letter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K. K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and othersExplained¶3
K. K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage and others [(2015) 4 SCC 670] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suneesh M.P.
Reserve Bank of India
Axis Bank
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
