Dismissed

Shaji George v. Authorised Officer

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016WP(C)/4974/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging excessive EMI charges by a bank after rescheduling a loan. The court held that the correctness of the bank’s amortization schedule could not be examined in Article 226 proceedings absent proof of variance with the loan agreement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it cannot challenge the bank’s amortization schedule in these proceedings.

Shaji George Vs Authorised Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4974 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SHAJI GEORGE, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, NEERETTUPURAM P.O., KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SEEMA SHAJI, W/O. SHAJI GEORGE, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, NEERETTUPURAM P.O., KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REGIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 003.

¶11

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

¶12

ARTHICHERRY BRANCH, STATE BANK F TRAVANCORE, CHAKKULATHUKAVILAMMA BUILDING, NEERETTUPURAM P.O - 689 571.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 4974 of 2016 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DT. 30.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 14.7.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN.

¶21

P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 19.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 13.11.2015 IN WPC NO. 33157/2015.

¶23

P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.4974 of 2016

¶30

............................................................. Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, where this Court, while disposing the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank for recovery of defaulted loan amounts, directed that, if the petitioner paid the overdue amount in the loan together with accrued interest in eight equal and successive monthly instalments commencing from 30.11.2015, and continued to keep up the regular instalments as per the original loan schedule, the recovery steps initiated against him by the respondent bank would be kept in abeyance. In the present writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that while he remitted the overdue amount mentioned in Ext.P4 judgment within time, when it came to the payment of monthly instalments it was found that the respondents were charging excess amounts by way of EMI which was not contemplated under the loan agreement. In a counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have produced as Annexure

¶33

-2-

¶34

W.P.(C). No.4974 of 2016

¶35

R1(a), the amortization schedule in respect of the loan extended to the petitioner. A perusal of Annexure R1(a) would indicate that the loan amount has been rescheduled from the initial basis, computing the term of the loan as 120 months, to a different basis by assuming the total term of the loan as 300 months. Accordingly, the EMI was fixed at Rs.29,861/- and the EMI payment is to go on till 10.06.2035.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank.

¶37

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find from Annexure R1(a) statement submitted by the respondent bank that the bank has rescheduled the loan and fixed the EMI based on an amortization schedule. While the petitioner would vehemently dispute the correctness of this schedule, there is no material produced to suggest that the amortization schedule prepared by the bank is at variance with the express terms of the agreement entered into between the bank and the petitioner. Under such

¶38

-3-

¶39

W.P.(C). No.4974 of 2016

¶40

circumstances, I am of the view that, the correctness of the amortization schedule cannot be gone into in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner, I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the respondent bank for a clarification with regard to the interest rate charged and the amortization schedule prepared.

¶43

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

mns/10.3.16

Shaji George v. Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji George v. Authorised Officer

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

Jenin Daniel Vs Catholic Syrian Bank

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Mohankumar.S Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.

Ashalatha Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Saranya Balakrishnan Vs Manager

M.V Roy Vs the State Bank of Travancore