Allowed

Francis Thachil v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Kerala HC9 Nov 2023WP(C)/18636/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the claim by KFC for additional interest. Court held consumer to be referred to competent authority for explanation of face value and due charges and be given appropriate statement of account and procedure.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent Authority of KFC to provide a detailed account statement within three months explaining the charged amounts.

Francis Thachil Vs Kerala Financial… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

FRANCIS THACHIL
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.JOSEPH, THACHIL (H), CHURCH NAGAR 136,
ANGAMALY 683 572.
BY ADVS.
SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
BENNY ANTONY PAREL
ANOOP SEBASTIAN
PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE
IRINE MATHEW
ADITHYA KIRAN V.E
ANJALI NAIR
NAAIL FATHIMA ABDULLA A.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER
FINANCE TOWER, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 017.
BY ADVS.
ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000)
S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020)

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022 2

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

The petitioner had availed of certain loan facilities from the respondent – Kerala Financial Corporation (‘KFC’ for short) and it appears that they had entered into an agreement, under the aegis of an ‘Adalath’, to settle it for a certain amount. The petitioner says that he had paid the entire amount, albeit beyond the time frame originally granted; and that the ‘KFC’ thereupon has charged usurious interest, thus forcing him to remit an additional Rs.3,36,000/-. He, therefore, prays that ‘KFC’ be directed to return the said amount to him, as also the title documents of the property earlier mortgaged by him.

¶13

Sri.Saiby Jose Kidangoor – learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, when this matter was called today, that the title documents of his client’s properties have been released, because he has furnished security for an amount Rs.67,661/-, being the sum stated by the ‘KFC’, when this matter was heard by this Court earlier, be the amount due from him. He submitted that, therefore, all which is now to be decided is whether his client is liable to pay the afore, or whether the ‘KFC’ has to return the amounts claimed by him.

¶14

Smt.Dhanya P. Ashokan – learned counsel for the ‘KFC’, in response, submitted that since the petitioner did not make payment of

¶15

WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022 3

¶16

the amount agreed in the ‘Adalath’ within the time frame fixed, her client was entitled to charge interest on it as per the contractual terms. She submitted that this is all that has been done and that going by such calculations, an amount of Rs.67,661/- is due from the petitioner.

¶17

The afore narrative would render it luculent that the controversy now between the parties is only as to the interest component of the settled amount. It is without dispute that petitioner has paid the settled amount and has also given a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs.67,661/-, which is now claimed by the ‘KFC’ to be due from him. However, it will not be possible for this Court, while it acts under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to enter into this realm because, it will require assessment of facts, as also document and other inputs.

¶18

I am, therefore, certain that competent Authority of the ‘KFC’ must hear the petitioner and give him a detailed account statement showing how the amounts were calculated and charged against him, including the additional claim of Rs.67,661/-. This shall be done after analyzing any document to be produced by the petitioner also, and strictly in terms of the award of the ‘Adalath’ between the parties earlier.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022 4

¶20

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed, directing the competent Authority of the ‘KFC’ to do as afore and to favour the petitioner with an appropriate statement of account and proceedings, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶21

Needless to say, depending upon the afore exercise and the figures to the arrived at, the ‘KFC’ will be at liberty to invoke the Bank Guarantee if the sum covered by it is found to be due from the petitioner, or to return the amount as found entitled to him. Either of it be done within a period of one month thereafter.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶24

MC/10.11

¶25

WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022 5

¶26

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18636/2022

¶27

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit P1` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `25218/2018 DATED` `HONOURABLE HIGH C`	`JUDGMENT IN WP(C)` `01.08.2018 OF THE` `OURT OF KERALA`
`Exhibit P2` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `MINI ADALAT CONST` `SETTLEMENT DATED`	`SETTLEMENT ARRIVED AT THE` `ITUTED FOR ONE-TIME` `27.0.2.2020.`
`Exhibit P3` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `FINANCIAL CORPORA`	`NOTICE OF THE KERALA` `TION DATED 18.02.2021 -`
`Exhibit P4` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `STATE MINISTER FO` `25.02.2021.`	`ENDORSEMENT OF THE HON'BLE` `R FINANCE AND COIR DATED`
`Exhibit P5` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `HIGH COURT COURT` `26.02.2021.`	`JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE` `IN WPC 5054/2021 DATED`
`Exhibit P6` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT CORPOR`	`NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `ATION DATED 25.02.2021.`
`Exhibit P7` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE OFFICIALS OF` `DATED 09.04.2021.`	`TAKEOVER MEMO ISSUED BY` `THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION`
`Exhibit P8` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `HONBLE HIGH COURT` `20.04.2021.`	`INTERIM ORDER OF THE` `IN WPC 10060/2021 DATED`
`Exhibit P9` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `BY THE RESPONDENT`	`SETTLEMENT NOTICE ISSUED` `DATED. 14.01.2022`
`Exhibit P10` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `SHOWING THE TRANS` `AMOUNT BY THE PET`	`STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT` `FER OF THE SETTLEMENT` `ITIONER.`
`Exhibit P11` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `16.03.2022 ACKNOW` `CHARGES MADE BY T`	`TREASURY CHALLAN DATED` `LEDGING PAYMENT OF R.R.` `HE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P12` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 21.03.2022`	`LOAN CLOSURE CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `HIGH COURT IN WP(` `25.03.2022`	`JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE` `C) 10060/2021 DATED`
`Exhibit P14` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE OFF` `CHIEF SECRETARY O`	`LETTER DATED 06.05.2022` `ICE OF THE ADDITIONAL` `F FINANCE DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit P15` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `RBI DATED 12/11/2`	`GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE` `010`
`Exhibit P15(A)` `TRUE COPY OF THE` `RBI DATED 25/11/2`	`GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE` `008`
`Exhibit P16` `TRUE COPY OF THE`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BANK`

¶28

WP(C) NO. 18636 OF 2022 6

¶29

STATEMENT OF THE TENANTS LINKED TO HDFC
BANK FROM 01/07/2021 TO 10/08/2021
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS DATED
19.12.2022 REFLECTING THE PAYMENT OF
REVENUE RECOVERY CHARGES
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT DATED
28.10.2022
Exhibit P15TRUE COPY OF THE GUARANTEE BOND DATED
29.7.2022
Exhibit P16TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF
ATTACHMENT DATED 6.12.2022
Exhibit P17TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENTS DATED
19.12.2022 REFLECTING THE PAYMENT OF
REVENUE RECOVERY CHARGES
Exhibit P18TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT DATED
28.10.2022

Francis Thachil v. Kerala Financial Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Thachil v. Kerala Financial Corporation

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

Bhaskaran Pathappilly Vs Malayattoor - Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Krishnakumar.S Vs District Collector

Sathyadas Vs Conservator of Forest

Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala

Rashida Jabbar Vs Verbster India Surgicals Pvt. Ltd.

Xxxx Vs Yyy