Disposed

Dr.Thampi Raj v. the Branch Manager

Kerala HC20 Feb 2024WP(C)/2940/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a bank's computation of interest on a loan account is not maintainable under Article 226, as such computation is not a task for the writ court. Where the petitioners had already approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the High Court declined relief and left them liberty to prosecute their consumer case.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to prosecute pending Consumer Court proceedings.

Dr.Thampi Raj Vs the Branch Manager — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2940 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1DR.THAMPI RAJ
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.E.THOMPSON,
KAMALA NILAYAM, ARALUMMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 123.

¶8

2SHEELA S.K.
AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.DR.THAMPI RAJ,
KAMALA NILAYAM, ARALUMMOODU P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 123.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

V.S.BABU GIREESAN
K.PREETHA JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE BRANCH MANAGER
ICICI BANK LTD., M.G.ROAD,
PULIMOODU JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

LAL K.JOSEPH ANZIL SALIM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.2940 of 2022

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2024

¶20

The petitioners, who have borrowed financial

¶21

advance from the ICICI Bank Limited, have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

(i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction to quash Ext.P5.

¶23

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the title deed of the petitioners by the respondent.

¶24

(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other direction as the court deem fit in this case.

¶25

Going through the pleadings, it is evident that the

¶26

petitioners are challenging the computation of interest. According to the petitioners, the respondent is charging excessive interest. Computation of the loan account of the petitioners is not a task which can be undertaken by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Counsel appearing for the petitioners would

¶28

submit that the petitioners have already approached the

¶29

W.P.(C) No.2940 of 2022

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

Consumer Court for redressal of their grievances.

¶32

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed

¶33

of without grant of any relief as prayed for in the writ petition,

¶34

but leaving liberty to the petitioners to prosecute their case before the Consumer Court.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶37

AMR

¶38

W.P.(C) No.2940 of 2022

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2940/2022

¶41

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED
21/11/2005.

¶43

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.264/2020
OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, TRIVANDRUM.

¶44

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE
RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE CONSUMER
FORUM IN CC 264/2020.

¶45

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
ISSUED ON 22/09/2020.

¶46

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE
DATED 16/12/2020.

¶47

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit R1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT
STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE
LOAN ACCOUNT NO. LBTVM00001187993 AS
ON 15.06.2022.

¶49

Exhibit R1(b)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT,
2002 DATED 04.08.2021.

¶50

Exhibit R1(c)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
22/12/2021 ISSUED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF THE
SARFAESI ACT.

Dr.Thampi Raj v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Thampi Raj v. the Branch Manager

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

Kelu Maliyekkal Vs Kottakal Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

K.T.George, Vs Employees State Insurance Corporation

Sumi Thilakan Vs Authorised Officer

Mathai @ T.J. Mathew Vs Managing Director, Union Bank of India

Steephan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Jabin K. Basheer Vs Regional Passport Officer Kochi