Dismissed

M.a.Shameer v. the Dhanalakshmi Bank

Kerala HC13 Feb 2020WP(C)/1414/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the direction to release title deeds. The court held a prior judgment could not serve as a magnacarta fixing the loan amount and interest. Interest continued to accrue until payment of a complete statement. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner was required to pay the bank's statement.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Bank allowed to supply complete statement with accrued interest.

M.a.Shameer Vs the Dhanalakshmi Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.A.SHAMEER, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA KUNHI HAJI, RESIDING AT M.A.K.HOUSE, MASTHIKKUND, MULIYAR VILLAGE, MANAGING PARTNER-SHA BUILDERS, KASARGOD.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.K.ABDUL NASSAR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE DHANALAKSHMI BANK, KASARGOD BRANCH, KASARGOD, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020

¶14

-2-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a

¶17

direction to the respondent Bank to release the title deed despite the fact that the entire payment, as noted in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court dated 21.03.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (c) No.9694 of 2018 has been made.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

¶19

the petitioner submits that there was a dispute with regard to the outstanding amount with the Bank. The respondent Bank was not adh ering to give a cause to the petitioner to approach this Court vide writ petition aforementioned. The aforementioned writ petition vide judgment dated 21.03.2018, was disposed of wherein in paragraph No.4 the outstanding amount on account of credit facility

¶20

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020 -3-

¶21

against the petitioner, on the date of the passing of the order, was shown as Rs.50,04,431/-. Petitioner

¶22

has already paid the entire amount by way of instalments as concession of instalments was also accorded. However, when the Bank insisted the petitioner to opt for one time settlement, petitioner was constrained to again approach this Court vide W.P.(c) No.20210/19 and the question accrued whether the petitioner, in pursuance to the previous judgment, had paid the amount as reflected in the judgment i.e., Rs.50,04,431/-. After having considered the matter, this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2019, disposed of the writ petition by noticing the aforementioned figure.

¶23

It is thereafter the petitioner received the bank statement Ext.P4 dated 26.09.2019 wherein an outstanding amount of more than what has already been noticed in the judgments Exts.P3 and P1, has

¶24

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020

¶25

-4-

¶26

been shown (Rs.2,92,668/-). Petitioner has raised serious objections and it is in this background, he has to approach this Court for the third time.

¶27

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submits that the supply of the accounts was totally in letter and spirit of the directions in the judgment (Ext.P3) dated 30.08.2019 but the petitioner is not willing to accept it.

¶28

5 . I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶29

parties and perused the paper book. I find that there is no merit in the submission of Mr.Shiraz Abdulla M.S. representing the petitioner for the sole reason that the judgment Ext.P1 cannot be construed to be a magnacarta between the parties to the lis as the expression and the words clearly reveals an outstanding amount of Rs.50,04,431/- as on the date of passing of the judgment, i.e., 21.03.2018. It also reveals that the aforementioned judgment granted

¶30

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020 -5-

¶31

the concession of payment of the amount by way of instalments. Payment of instalments would not arrest the period of interest, if the Bank is entitled to. It is in this circumstances the dispute arose with regard to a particular figure which the petitioner could not comprehend necessitating him to approach second time resulting into a judgment dated 30.08.2019, wherein, in paragraph No.6, this Court held, after noticing the contention, as under:

¶32

“6.Resultantly, I am of the view that the Bank must now favour the petitioner with a complete Statement of Account, taking the outstanding in the loan account to be Rs.50,04,431/-, as on 21.03.2018 and they will be entitled to charge all accrued interest, expenses and charges thereafter. If such a statement is given to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the petitioner will be obligated to make payment as per it, subject to his right to challenge the same in an appropriate proceedings, if it becomes so warranted; and on completion of such payment, the Bank will close the loan account and

¶33

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020

¶34

-6-

¶35

deliver back the title documents of the property involved in the account.”

¶36

6 . The clear and simple language of the aforementioned paragraph release no manner of doubt that the Bank has not been prevented from charging any interest. The statement of account supplied included the element of interest. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he can always raise the disputed questions by filing suit otherwise for the relief as sought after paying the amount by reserving the right can also assail such statement in accordance with law.

¶37

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C).No.1414 OF 2020

¶43

-7-

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 9694/18 DATED 21.3.2018

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 21.6.2019

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 20210/19 DATED 30.8.2019

¶49

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS DATED 26.9.2019

¶50

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.10.2019

¶51

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DATED 28.08.2019 FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.20210 OF 2019 AT THE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OF THE LEARNED JUDGE.

¶53

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

M.a.Shameer v. the Dhanalakshmi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.a.Shameer v. the Dhanalakshmi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santo Mathew Vs Union of India

Abdul Hakkim.C Vs State of Kerla

Raseena Salim Vs Kottayam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Johnson and Company, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Ollukkara Service Co-Operative Bank Limited Vs the Income Tax Officer

Roy, Vs Authorised Officer, Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.55