Dismissed

Ashraf M. a. v. Banking Ombudsman

Kerala HC5 Dec 2023WP(C)/25898/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Banking Ombudsman and Indian Overseas Bank to consider a representation alleging premature possession of mortgaged properties. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner's contractual obligations were only with the borrower, and he had already initiated a civil suit against them.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed as it is not maintainable.

Ashraf M. a. Vs Banking Ombudsman — 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

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25898 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHRAF M. A., AGED 57 YEARS SON OF ABDULKHADER, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, PUTHUPPADY P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 686673

¶8

PEEYUS A.KOTTAM HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RAGESH CHAND R.G.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶11

2 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, CENTRAL OFFICE, 762 ANNA SALAI, MOUNT ROAD, TRIPLICANE, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 600002

¶12

3 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK REGIONAL OFFICE, VETTUKATTIL; BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, JOSE JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM - 682016

¶13

4 INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ALUVA BRANCH, KODAWATH SHOPPING COMPLEX, SUB JAIL ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 683101

¶14

5 SILVER STREAM PLASTICS AND CHEMICALS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.H.HINSAF, NEW SHERILAND, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691004

¶15

Sunil Shankar A VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020) JERIN GEORGE(K/863/2023) SANDHRA.S(K/001610/2021)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C) NO. 25898 OF 2023

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner says that he entered into an agreement of sale with the fifth respondent for the purchase of some of their properties, which is admittedly equitably mortgaged to the second respondent - Indian Overseas Bank ('IOB'). He says that based on the agreement – a copy of which is on record as Ext.P7 - he remitted an amount of Rs.3,34,45,600/- into the loan account of the fifth respondent, but that they refused thereafter to abide by their contractual obligations; and thus that he has been constrained to file a Suit against them and the Bank for return of the said amount.

¶21

The petitioner says that, in the meantime, the 'IOB' took possession of the properties in question and that thus he has been subjected to grave prejudice, having lost his money and without any benefit under Ext.P7 agreement. He says that he has, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 representation before the IOB and seeks that they be directed to consider the same, without any avoidable delay.

¶22

Sri.Sunil Sankar – learned standing counsel for the 'IOB', in response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, as made

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 25898 OF 2023

¶25

by his learned counsel – Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, submitted that the petitioner, as far his client is concerned, is an outsider, who is stated to have entered into an agreement with the fifth respondent - borrower. He submitted that his client has no information on the allegations made in this writ petition, particularly that the petitioner had made payment into the loan account of the fifth respondent on the assurance of a Manager of its; and that these are self-serving statements, without any truth. He submitted that, therefore, his client is not willing to consider Ext.P3 representation because, it is preferred by the petitioner who has no connection with the loan agreement at all and without any privity with them.

¶26

In reply, Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam - learned counsel for the petitioner, reiteratingly affirmed that his client had believed the assurance of a person by name Sri.Shanmughavel who was the Manager of the Bank; and that it was on such assurance that he had remitted the aforementioned amount into the account of the fifth respondent. He submitted that, therefore, the Bank has a duty to allay his client's apprehensions.

¶27

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam because, even going by the

¶28

WP(C) NO. 25898 OF 2023 4

¶29

pleadings, the petitioner only says that a Manager by name Shanmughavel gave an oral assurance. This is not something that this Court can accept at face value, and which is for the petitioner to prove appropriately. In fact, as is also admitted, the petitioner has initiated legal proceedings against the Bank and the fifth respondent, by filing a Civil Suit before a competent Court.

¶30

Hence, as correctly argued by Sri.Sunil Sankar, the contract of the petitioner is only with the fifth respondent - as is evident from Ext.P7; and obviously, therefore, he will have to work his remedies against the said entity as per law. Since he has already initiated legal action against them and the Bank, I am certain that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶31

Needless to say, all the observations in the judgment are only intended for the disposal of this writ petition and will have no reflection on any other legal proceedings between the parties.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is closed.

¶33

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶34

stu

¶35

WP(C) NO. 25898 OF 2023

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25898/2023

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 16.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.05.2023 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4
Exhibit P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.07.2023 SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN/1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH E-MAIL
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RESERVE BANK - INTEGRATED OMBUDSMAN SCHEME, 2021, NOTIFICATION REF. NO.CEPD. PRD. NO.S873/13. 01.001/2021-22 DATED NOVEMBER 12, 2021
Exhibit P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 29.10.2022 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN MORTGAGED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK

¶40

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit	R4(a) True copy of	the	plaint in OS No. 28 of
	2023 before	the	Hon'ble Sub Court,
	Perumbavoor	date	d 31.03.2023
Exhibit	R4(b) True copy of 20.6.2022	the	sanction letter dated

Ashraf M. a. v. Banking Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf M. a. v. Banking Ombudsman

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

Radhakrishnan Nair T.P. Vs State Bank of India

Shajahan Vs Union of India

Gopika Jaya Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Anil D Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

V.C. Anil Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Universal Tele Service, Represented by Its Proprietor, Rajesh Babu Vs the Chief General Manager (Telecom)