Dismissed

Thomas Thomas, v. Union Bank of India

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/22975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the writ petition is not maintainable as the challenge against the bank's demand for processing fees and retention of mortgaged title deeds does not involve enforcing a public duty. Following precedents Sleebachan and Unimoni, the petition was dismissed without affecting general remedy rights.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability as the reliefs do not involve enforcing a public duty.

Thomas Thomas, Vs Union Bank of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22975 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THOMAS THOMAS, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KAVALAMPUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 603. 2 ALICE THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS W/O. THOMAS, KAVALAMPUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 602. BY ADVS. GEORGE MATHEW M.D.SASIKUMARAN PRAVEEN S. SUNIL KUMAR A.G MATHEW K.T. GEORGE K.V. STEPHY K REGI ELSA DENNY PINDIS DIPU JAMES

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO, UNION BANK BHAVAN, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA 400 021.

¶10

2 LEAD MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, LEAD OFFICE, SEMI SQUARE BUILDING, AMBALAM BYE PASS, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 584. 3 UNION BANK OF INDIA, IDUKKI BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, IDUKKI VILLAGE AND TALUK , IDUKKI COLONY P.O, CHERUTHONY, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602.

¶11

BY ADVS. ASP.KURUP SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)

¶12

W.P.(C).22975/2022

¶13

¶14

C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).22975/2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2022

¶20

Although various contentions are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners and replied by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, I find that the writ petition is not maintainable as the reliefs sought are not for enforcing any public duty bestowed on the Bank. The issue as to the maintainability stands covered against the petitioners, by the judgments of this Court in Sleebachan v. State of Kerala (2020 (4) KLT Online 1024) and Unimoni Financial Services Ltd. v. IDBI Bank Limited (2020 SCC Online Ker. 7347). Being contextually relevant paragraph 21 of the decision in Unimoni Financial Services Ltd, is extracted herein;

¶21

“21. In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the demand made by the respondents towards processing fee of an alleged credit facility and also relating to withholding of the title deeds of the properties which were mortgaged/given in security. Providing of credit facility or providing of loan on the strength of the title deeds given in security cannot be said to be done in discharge of any public

¶22

W.P.(C).22975/2022

¶23

¶24

function, even in a case where it is made by a Public Sector undertaking/Bank and especially when it arises out of contractual transactions entered into between the parties and the bank.”

¶25

I am in respectful agreement with the above finding of

¶26

the learned Single Judge and is also bound by the decision of the Division Bench in Sleebachan. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

Needless to say that the judgment will not curtail the writ petitioners' right to seek remedy before the appropriate forum/court.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

W.P.(C).22975/2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22975/2022

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 1789890 DTD. 08.09.2021 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, IDUKKI. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 09.10.2014 IN W.P.C NO. 25118 OF 2014. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN CLOSURE LETTER DTD. 25.10.2014 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

Thomas Thomas, v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Thomas, v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhakumari .M. Vs the District Collector

Jagan John Vs the Uzhavoor Grama Pamnchayath

A.K.Mohammedali Vs the District Magistrate

E.Prakashan Vs Union of India

K.G.Philip Vs the Chief Executive Officer

G.Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala