Dismissed

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil v. Indusind Bank

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021WP(C)/7107/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging alleged wrong entries in the petitioner's CIBIL report. The High Court observed that the disputed entry had been removed. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to approach the bank for a loan subject to eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach 3rd respondent for financial assistance; 3rd respondent to consider application if eligible. Petition disposed.

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7107 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANEESH K. @ SANEESH KALATHIL AGED 45 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, PALLIKKARA, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-560037, PROPRIETOR, M/S. KALATHIL AGENCIES, 2ND FLOOR, HILAL COMPLEX, KANHANGAD. BY ADV B.SAINU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 INDUSIND BANK INDUSIND MARKETING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., FIRST FLOOR, SKM COMPLEX, STADIUM ROAD, CHERUPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670511, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2 THE DIRECTOR, TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED, ONE INDIA BULLS CENTER, TOWER 2A, 19TH FLOOR, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, ELPHINSTONE ROADS, MUMBAI-400013. 3 THE FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, KANHANGAD BRANCH, GANESH TOWER, T.B.ROAD JUNCTION, KANHANGAD P.O., PIN-671315, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE -R1 C.AJITH KUMAR - R2

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C) NO.7107/2021

¶12

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶14

W.P.(C)No.7107 of 2021

¶15

Dated this the 09^th day of November 2021

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is aggrieved by a wrong entry alleged to be entered in the credit details of the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent in their site, which according to the petitioner creates serious problems to him. According to the petitioner, he was informed by the 3^rd respondent that there is an adverse entry in petitioner's credit information maintained by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner has been engaging in the business of selling medical equipments for the last 15 years and in order to establish his business and start independently, he approached the 3^rd respondent for seeking financial assistance under Mudra loan, a scheme as part of Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme.

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO.7107/2021

¶20

Because of the wrong entry in the CIBIL as evident by Ext.P1, the petitioner is not getting the financial assistance from the 3^rd respondent. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶21

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

¶22

3. As far as the 1^st respondent is concerned, it is submitted that there is no liability from the petitioner towards the 1^st respondent bank. As far as the entry in Ext.P1 is concerned, the learned counsel who appeared for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the entry to the effect that “suit filed/wilful default:suit filed” is already removed after getting report from the bank concerned. The learned counsel also submitted that, if the petitioner check the website now, the above entry will not be there and he can approach the 3^rd respondent now.

¶23

4. In the changed circumstances, I think the

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO.7107/2021

¶26

petitioner can be allowed to approach the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent can consider the financial assistance to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible.

¶27

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

¶28

(i) The submission of the 2^nd respondent that the entry in Ext.P1 against the petitioner is already removed is recorded.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner is free to approach the 3^rd respondent for financial assistance as per Mudra Scheme under the Prime Ministers Employment Generation Programme.

¶30

(iii) If such an application is received from the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent will consider the same and take appropriate decision in it, if it is otherwise in order and he is eligible.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.7107/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7107/2021

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THEIR WEBSITE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK DATED 27.1.2021 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

PA TO JUDGE

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil v. Indusind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saneesh K. @ Saneesh Kalathil v. Indusind Bank

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

S. Vincent, Advocate, Vs State of Kerala

Priya Binu Vs T.P.Muhammed

K.Prasad Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Malayil Samad Vs General Manager

A.V. Antony, Vs Kerala State Water Authority

Chakkappa Vs District Collector