Disposed

Byjou T. v. Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch

Kerala HC1 Aug 2019WP(C)/8308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a loan borrower against a bank regarding alleged outstanding dues. The court directed the bank to furnish a detailed statement of accounts showing all payments received within two weeks, leaving legal and factual questions open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent bank to provide a statement of accounts showing all adjustments made against the loan balance within two weeks.

Byjou T. Vs Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8308 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

BYJOU T. AGED 43 YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, R/O.POURNAMI, OPP.GOVT.L.P.SCHOOL, PARAL P.O., CHEMBRA-MAHE

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SMT.CIMY VARGHESE SMT.LINDA.M.J. SRI.M.A.BABY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

BANK OF BARODA,THALASSERY BRANCH, THALASSERY BRANCH, P.B.NO.6420/4630,SAMA CENTRE, JUBILEE ROAD, THALASSERY, KERALA-670 101,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶11

SMT.R.REMA,SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.8308 of 2019

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Petitioner has availed a loan from the respondent bank for an amount of Rs.5,95,000/-. The same was to be repaid in 180 equated monthly instalments within 15 years ie. up to 30.6.2018. According to the petitioner, petitioner was paying the EMI initially from the SB Account of the petitioner and thereafter through online. Even though variation in interest rate as per RBI rate was not informed to the petitioner, petitioner paid the full EMI as per the variation in interest rate and also as per the calculation given by the 1^st respondent. Any how, according to the respondent bank, amounts are remaining against the petitioner, which is stoutly disputed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶17

A statement is filed by the respondent bank, virtually submitting that the balance outstanding is Rs.42,000/-, which is also disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is also pointed out that, in spite of earnest efforts made by the petitioner, no statement of account is provided to the petitioner.

¶18

WP(C).No.8308 of 2019

¶19

¶20

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank, I think it is only appropriate that, the writ petition is disposed of with suitable directions. There will be a direction to the respondent bank to provide a statement of accounts to the petitioner showing the adjustments made so far as to the payment effected from the SB Account as well as the payments made by the petitioner through online, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, petitioner will be guided by the decision taken by the bank and the statement of accounts released to the petitioner. The questions of law and facts raised in this writ petition are left open.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No.8308 of 2019

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER FROM JULY ONWARDS EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE COMPLAINANT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 02.07.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 03.07.2018 AND REPLY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 05.07.2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.OBO (T).1744/CTS 1035/2018-19 DATED 19.09.18 FROM BANKING OMBUSMAN EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM ,KANNUR EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR, RBI EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.09.18

Byjou T. v. Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byjou T. v. Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch

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

A.M.A Oil Mill, Vs State of Kerala

Angela Johnikutty Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Rajeev Vs the Additional District Magistrate

Nivin P.I. Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

K.Suresh Kumar Vs the Registrar of Companies

Bincy K.P., Vs State of Kerala