Disposed

George Sebastian v. Union of India

Kerala HC23 Mar 2021WP(C)/2568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners sought restructuring of vehicle loans used for travel and tourism businesses under the RBI circular. The bank rejected their applications, claiming they were unaffected by the pandemic. The court observed that these businesses were clearly impacted by lockdown and directed the bank to consider fresh applications from petitioners within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank to consider fresh applications submitted by petitioners within two weeks and take action within one month under the RBI scheme.

George Sebastian Vs Union of India — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C).No.2568 OF 2021(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE SEBASTIAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O. A.J. SEBASTIAN, EDAYANTHARATHU HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O, KONDOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686123,

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.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.

¶11

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.

¶12

3 HDFC BANK LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, VETTOOR BUILDING, OPP.PUBLIC LIBRARY, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686001.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER

¶14

SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH,SC,RBI SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR,ASGI

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶22

WP(C).No.2582 OF 2021(W)

¶23

PETITIONER:

¶24

JESTIN JOSE AGED 37 YEARS S/O JOSE JOSEPH, MUNDATHU HOUSE, POONJAR NADUBHAGOM, CHENNADU P O, KOTTAYAM-686581.

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND BANKING AFFAIRS, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶28

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.

¶29

3 HDFC BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, VETTOOR BUILDING, OPP. BUILDING LIBRARY, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶30

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER

¶31

SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH,SC,RBI SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶34

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶38

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

¶39

WP(C).No.2587 OF 2021(W)

¶40

PETITIONER:

¶41

1 BIJU SEBASTIAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O A J SEBASTIAN, ALWIN VILLA HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P O, KOTTAYAM-686004.

¶42

2 JESSY BIJU AGED 40 YEARS W/O BIJU SEBASTIAN, EDAYANTHARATHU HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P O, VIJAYAPURAM, KOTTAYAM-686004.

¶43

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶44

RESPONDENTS:

¶45

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND BANKING AFFAIRS, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶46

2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695033, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.

¶47

3 HDFC BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, FIRST FLOOR, VETTOOR BUILDING, OPP. PUBLIC LIBRARY, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶48

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶49

¶50

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER

¶51

SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH ,SC, RBI SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶54

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

[WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021]

¶57

Dated this the 23rd day of March 2021

¶58

In all these cases, petitioners have availed vehicle loans from the 3^rd

¶59

respondent Bank. The vehicles which are purchased availing the loan are employed in the business of travel and tourism. Their grievance is that the benefit of restructuring provided under Ext.P1 scheme is not extended to them, though they have submitted applications in the SMS link made available to them by the 3^rd respondent Bank. The writ petitions were filed after issuing a lawyer notice to

¶60

the 3^rd respondent Bank demanding extension of the benefits or rescheduling of repayment of loan.

¶61

Heard Sri. V.A. Vinod, the

¶62

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶63

¶64

learned counsel appearing for the

¶65

petitioner and Sri.Adv.Sri.Mathew A. Kuzhalanadan, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶66

The learned Standing counsel submitted that, the bank has already rejected the applications. The rejection

¶67

is on the ground that the petitioners are not affected by Covid-19. There cannot be any basis for such a conclusion that those who depend on travel and tourism are not affected by Covid-19. If at all the respondents have come to such a conclusion, that can only be factually incorrect. A person whose vehicle was employed in travel and tourism business can not be said to be one not affected

¶68

by Covid-19.

¶69

The case of the petitioners is

¶70

that, till the lock down was imposed in March, 2020 they had been making the

¶71

WP(C)Nos.2568/2021, 2582/2021 and 2587/2021

¶72

¶73

repayment regularly. Even though the

¶74

benefit of moratorium has been granted to the petitioners, they find it difficult to make the repayment and therefore they have requested for restructuring of their loan, in the light of Ext.P1 scheme.

¶75

As the learned Standing Counsel

¶76

submitted that the link for the purpose

¶77

of processing the application of the petitioners is no longer available, it is only appropriate that the petitioners submit fresh applications before the bank and the Bank considers the same, taking a lenient view, taking note of the benefits which were admissible under the scheme which was floated by the Reserve Bank of India, the benefit of which is not extended to the petitioners.

¶78

In case the petitioners submit

¶79

their applications along with a copy of the judgment within a period of two

¶80

¶81

¶82

weeks, the 3^rd respondent Bank shall take appropriate action on it, within a further period of one month, taking note of Ext P1 scheme.

¶83

The writ petitions are accordingly

¶84

disposed of.

¶85

Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WPC NO.2568/2021

¶90

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶91

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 06.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.

¶92

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE REQUESTING RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN ACCOUNT DATED 03.12.2020

¶93

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.01.2021.

¶94

¶95

¶96

APPENDIXOF WPC NO.2582/2021

¶97

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶98

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF	THE	CIRCULAR DATED 06.08.2020
	ISSUED BY THE	RES	ERVE BANK OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF RESTRUCTURING 08/12/2020.	THE OF	LAWYER NOTICE REQUESTING LOAN ACCOUNT DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER DA	THE TED	REQUEST GIVEN BY THE 20.01.2021.

¶99

¶100

¶101

APPENDIXOF WPC NO.2587/2021

¶102

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶103

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 06/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA.

¶104

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE REQUESTING RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN ACCOUNT DATED 30.12.2020.

¶105

EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE REQUESTING RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN ACCOUNT DATED 11.12.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.01.2021. EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.01.2021.

¶106

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶107

//TRUE COPY//

¶108

PA TO JUDGE

George Sebastian v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Sebastian 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph T.M. Vs Chief Engineer

James Paul Vs Sri. S. Venkatesapathy IAS

Satheeshan R. Vs the Branch Manager

Jaimon James Vs Union of India

M/S Aks Cold Storage Ltd. Vs Indian Bank

Jayaprakashan P. Vs State of Kerala