Disposed

Alex Cherian v. Union of India

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/12157/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Reserve Bank of India and ICICI Bank to consider the petitioner's representations for loan restructuring within one month, stay recovery steps, and afford an opportunity of hearing before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd and 4th Respondents to consider representations and pass orders within one month; stay on recovery steps; direction to provide hearing opportunity.

Alex Cherian Vs Union of India — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12157 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALEX CHERIAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O CHERIAN K. CHANDY, KALAYIL HOUSE, MOOLAVATTOM, KOTTAYAM-686 012.

¶8

BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND BANKING AFFAIRS, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 3 ICICI BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, C.S.I ASCENSION SQUARE, COLLECTORATE-RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4 ICICI BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, EDAPALLY BRANCH, 3RD FLOOR, PUSHPAMANGALAM ESTATE, NH BYPASS, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAAM-682 024.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.ANISH JAIN, CGC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO.12157/2021

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶16

W.P.(C)No.12157 of 2021

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of September 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The above Writ petition is filed with following

¶20

prayers:

¶21

“a) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondent to see that the banks under the 2^nd respondent is acting upon request based upon Ext P-1 and P-5 for restructuring the loan.

¶22

b) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Ext P-1 and P-5 for restructuring the loan account No LBKOM00002559188, loan account No LBKOM00002737775 and loan account No

¶23

LBKOM00002737770 held with the respondent ICICI Bank Ltd.

¶24

c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to investigate the conduct of 3^rd respondent and 4^th respondent in not considering the grant of benefit of loan restructuring in the light of Ext P-1 and P-5 to the petitioner and appropriate actions is to be initiated against the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶25

d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 4^th respondent to consider and pass orders on

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO.12157/2021

¶28

Ext P-7 to P-9 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶29

e) grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.”

¶30

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent bank is not giving the benefit of Exts.P1 and P5 for restructuring the loan account No.LBKOM00002559188, loan account No. LBKOM00002737775 and loan account No. LBKOM00002737770 held with the respondent ICICI Bank Ltd. The petitioner submitted Exts.P7 to P9 representations before the 4^th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the same

¶31

is not considered.

¶32

3. When this matter came up for

¶33

consideration on 02.08.2021, this Court issued notice to respondents 3 and 4. There is no appearance for the bank, even though the notice is served. This Court also granted an interim direction not to take any steps against the petitioner for recovery of loan.

¶34

WP(C) NO.12157/2021

¶35

¶36

4. Today when the matter came up for

¶37

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there may be a direction to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to consider Exts.P7 to P9 representations in the light of Exts.P1 and P5. Since, there is no appearance for the 3^rd and 4^th respondent, I think this writ petition need not be kept pending.

¶38

There can be a direction to dispose the representations and till then recovery steps can be stayed.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following manner:

¶40

i) The respondent Nos.3 and 4 (who is

¶41

competent to decide the same) will consider Exts.P7 to P9 in the light of Exts.P1 and P5 and pass appropriate orders in it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from

¶42

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

ii) Till a decision is taken in Exts.P7

¶44

to P9, further recovery steps against the

¶45

WP(C) NO.12157/2021

¶46

¶47

petitioner will be kept in abeyance.

¶48

iii) The authority who consider the above representations will give an opportunity of hearing also to the petitioner before passing

¶49

final orders.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.12157/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12157/2021

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 6.8.2020 ISSUED B	CIRCULAR DATED Y THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 19.12.2020	EMIL COMMUNICATION
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMING THE RE RESTRUCTURING DAT	EMAIL COMMUNICATION CEIPT OF REQUEST FOR ED 30.12.2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 7.1.2021	EMAIL COMMUNICATION
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 2.0. DATED 5.5.20 RESPONDENT	RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK 21 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED	UDYAM REGISTRATION 4.12.2020
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 20.5.2021	WRITTEN REQUEST PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 20.05.2021	WRITTEN REQUEST PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 20.5.2021	WRITTEN REQUEST PETITIONER DATED

¶58

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶59

// TRUE COPY//

¶60

PA TO JUDGE

Alex Cherian v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex Cherian v. Union of India

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

David John Vs the District Collector

Dr.Naveen K Vs the Principal, Government Medical College

Sabu C Vs the Chenkal Grama Panchayath

Rajamma.G. Vs Sub Collector/ Sub Divisional Magistrate

P.N.Sreenivasan Vs the District Collector

Sri Sai Sankara Santhikendram Vs Board of Control for the Orphanage and Other Charitable Homes, Kerala