Disposed

Sunilkumar v., v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Mar 2019WP(C)/485/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court directed the respondent bank to recalculate the petitioner's loan account as per original terms after granting an opportunity of hearing, noting the petitioner's objection to unilateral rescheduling.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank to recalculate the petitioner's account as per original terms after an opportunity of hearing within six weeks.

Sunilkumar v., Vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 485 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SUNILKUMAR V., AGED 49 YEARS S/O. VENUGOPAL, EDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANDAPURA ROAD. P.O. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680121.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

IRINJALAKUDA TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.53, TANA SOUTH, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680121, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 485/19

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who concedes to be the

¶16

borrower of certain amounts from the respondentBank, seems aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication issued to him by the said Bank, informing him that his account has been rescheduled but without any prior notice to be him. According to the petitioner Ext.P9 communication was thereafter issued to him demanding certain amounts shown as being due on the basis of this rescheduling and he submits that he is not willing to accept such rescheduling and prays that the Bank be directed to allow him to pay off the loan as per the original sanction.

¶17

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶18

Bank submits that the loan of the petitioner was rescheduled only to benefit him, but that if he

¶19

doesn’t want the said benefit, his client is

¶20

willing to recalculate the amount as per the original terms and intimate him; and prays that

¶21

WPC 485/19

¶22

¶23

this Court permit his client to initiate action for recovery of such amounts, if the petitioner does not effect payment of the same within the time to be granted to him.

¶24

Taking note of the afore circumstances, I direct the respondent-Bank to recalculate the

¶25

account of the petitioner, after affording an

¶26

opportunity of being heard to him and to

¶27

thereafter issue to him the resultant

¶28

proceedings showing the amounts due in his

¶29

account, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

I make it clear that once such

¶31

communication is received by the petitioner, it

¶32

will be up to him to either abide by the same or

¶33

to initiate action, as may be available to him in law, if he is so advised.

¶34

I also make it clear that once the exercise

¶35

as ordered herein is completed, the Bank will be at liberty to initiate all steps for recovery of

¶36

WPC 485/19

¶37

¶38

any amount that may be found due from the

¶39

petitioner.

¶40

learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as per the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has already paid Rs.30,000/- and that this amount be also directed to be given credited to by the Bank, while recalculating the account. It certainly goes without saying that the Bank will be obligated to take this payment also into account while issuing the proceedings as directed herein.

¶41

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 485/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 23/10/2018 SENT BY SMT. DHANYA RAJA
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY SMT. DHANYA RAJA
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 03/11/2018 SENT BY SMT. DHANYA RAJA
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 07/11/2018 ALONG WITH A STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 11/11/2018 SEND TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF REPLY AS AN ATTACHMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER ACCOUNT DETAILS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 102230120000016 DATED 18/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER.
RESPONDE	NTS'	EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT	R1	TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LEDGER OF ACCOUNT NUMBER 102230050000011

Sunilkumar v., v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar v., v. Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank 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

Parish Chitty Company Ltd., Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Thomas P.J. Vs Kerala State Electrocity Board Ltd.

T.N.Ganapriya, Vs District Collector and Maintenance Appellate Tribunal

Managing Committee of Keezhallur Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.F.1455, Vs Governor

Rajani Vs South Indian Bank

Nijil Raj Vs Calicut City Service Co-Operative Bank Limited