Disposed

Sunil Kumar.P.G. v. Kotak Mahindra Private Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/25716/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the respondent bank's recovery of substantial cheque bounce charges. The court, finding prima facie illegality, directed the respondent to consider a representation from the petitioner for adjustment of amounts towards outstanding dues and allowed approach to statutory authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit a request for adjustment; respondent to consider same and decide, taking note of evidence.

Sunil Kumar.P.G. Vs Kotak Mahindra Private… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR.P.G., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.P.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SHANTHI NIVAS, MANGANAM P.O., VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 018.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIVATE LTD., REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IVTH FLOOR, PAYYIL KOHINOOR ARCADE, SANKRANTHI JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686 028. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY SRI.MANAS P HAMEED SRI.ELDHO.N.MONCY SRI.SHANAVAS K.A.

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 2^nd respondent Bank realised charges from the petitioner by presenting the cheque several times in the very same month and realised bouncing/ dishonour charges from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.885/-.

¶16

2. It is stated that even during moratorium period, such dishonour charges are realised by unnecessarily presenting the cheque. It is stated that a sum of Rs.77,880/was realised from the petitioner towards this unnecessary demand and illegal action of the respondent. It is pointed out that the dishonour charges are realised even six times in the very same month in order to harass the petitioner. At the same time, it is stated that another financial institution presented

¶17

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

¶18

¶19

the cheque only once and no such charges are realised. It is pointed out that even though the cheque was bounced, the charges are realised only once, pointing out Ext.P2.

¶20

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.77,800/- recovered from him for 88 bounces and another sum of Rs.8,850/recovered during the moratorium period and for adjusting the same towards the outstanding amount in his loan account. The action of the respondent in presenting a cheque for clearance six to eight times in a month and for realisation of the same appears prima facie unjustified. Six instalments are still

¶21

due to the respondent, petitioner claims adjustment of this amount towards the said instalments.

¶22

4. I heard the learned Standing Counsel

¶23

also.

¶24

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

¶25

¶26

As there is prima facie illegality on

¶27

the part of the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner has to submit a representation before the respondent pointing out his grievance and request for adjustment. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall consider the same and take a decision on it taking note of Ext.P2 also. Petitioner would also be free to approach the statutory authorities also in the meanwhile, if so advised.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/-

¶29

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1

¶36

EXHIBIT P2

¶37

TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS ON 23.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK. TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 22.06.2020 RECEIVED FROM HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER.

Sunil Kumar.P.G. v. Kotak Mahindra Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar.P.G. v. Kotak Mahindra Private 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

The Proprietor Vs State of Kerala

Snehatheeram Charitable Society Vs State of Kerala

X Vs Union of India

Kanjirapuzha Planters Association Vs the District Collector

Thressia K.O Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

R-Cell Diagnostics and Research Centre Vs State of Kerala