Disposed

Ajeesh .K v. M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Mar 2024WP(C)/593/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower challenged the One Time Settlement figure quoted by a housing finance company as excessive and sought its recalculation per Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The court held its jurisdiction over the quantum of such settlements is extremely limited, disposed of the petition by granting liberty to seek further concessions, with timelines fixed, and left resort to the Banking Ombudsman or

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the 1st respondent for further OTS concessions within one week; final figure to be intimated within two weeks; Banking Ombudsman and civil court remedies left open.

Ajeesh .K Vs M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

AJEESH .K AGED 40 YEARS S/O. KUNJIPA, RESIDING AT CHERANAD HOUSE, PADETTI, ERIMAYUR, LANDMARK - NEAR ERIMAYUR JUMA MASJID, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678546

¶6

BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H. K.S.SMITHA B.R.SINDU V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 M/S. MUTHOOT HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, BUILDING NO.1091/3, MAR AUGIN GOLDEN JUBILEE COMPLEX, KANJANI ROAD, WEST FORT JUNCTION, POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680004

¶9

2 DEPOSIT INSURANCE AND CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION., REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, COMPLAINTS RESOLUTION CELL, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, 2ND FLOOR, OPPOSITE MUMBAI CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION, BHYCULLA, MUMBAI, PIN - 400008

¶10

3 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, LISIE JUNCTION, NEAR NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018

¶11

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶12

¶13

BY ADV PREMCHAND M M SRI.BALA MURALIKRISHNAN M

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶16

¶17

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶18

-------------------------------------------------

¶19

W.P.(C) No.593 of 2024

¶20

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2024

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner asserts that the figure of Rs.15,20,927.99/(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Ninety Nine only), offered by the 1^st respondent, towards One Time Settlement of a loan account availed of by them in the past, is incorrect and excessive. He, therefore, prays that the 1^st respondent be directed to redo the said figure, by reducing it appropriately, adverting to the guidelines issued by the 3^rd respondent-Reserve Bank of India, from time to time.

¶23

Sri.Balamurali Krishna.M, representing the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, however, submitted that the discretion to offer a One Time Settlement to a borrower and

¶24

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶25

¶26

to fix the amount thereunder, is fully vested with its client and cannot be normally challenged by anyone before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that his client has fixed this figure after due thought and that they are even willing to give more concessions, if the petitioner is to approach them appropriately. He, however, added that the assertions of the petitioner, that his client has acted in contravention of the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, is without any basis.

¶27

When I consider and evaluate the afore rival contentions, it is evident that the jurisdiction of this Court, to enter into the quantum of the figure fixed by a Financial Institution as a One Time Settlement, is extremely limited, if not fully barred. These are matters that the parties must resolve between themselves; or, in the alternative, the petitioner must invoke other remedies as may be available to them, including before the alternative competent forums. .

¶28

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶29

¶30

However, adverting to the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶31

(a) I leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1^st respondent again for further concessions under

¶32

the One Time Settlement Scheme; and if this is done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the same shall be considered and he intimated of the final figure -whether in modification or affirmation of the present one,-within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶33

(b) On the petitioner receiving the afore quantification, he will either be at liberty to abide by the same and close his own account; or, in the alternative, to approach a competent forum, including the Banking Ombudsman, if he has any

¶34

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶35

¶36

further grievance.

¶37

(c) Needless to say, the remedy of the petitioner to approach a civil court or such other judicial forums is also left open; for which purpose, all rival contentions are left undecided.

¶38

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 593/2024

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO. 107711 DATED 01.09.2022 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR RS.13,05,159/-
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.09.2022 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 05.07.2023 RELATING TO THE PETITIONER'S LOAN ACCOUNT
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF THE BANKING INSTITUTION, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED ON 22.01.2023
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRALIZED RECEIPT NO. RBI/CMS/N202324015002141/2023-24
	ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER FILED AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C) NO.29217/2022 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 01.06.2023
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P. (C) NO.28215/2023 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶45

WP(C) NO. 593 OF 2024

¶46

¶47

ON 12.10.2023

¶48

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 27.10.2023 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER ON 16.11.2023 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 01.11.2022 TO 27.11.2023 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BY M/S ESAF BANK EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LOAN INSTALLMENTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Ajeesh .K v. M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeesh .K v. M/S. Muthoot Housing Finance Company Ltd.

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

Devika Bipin, Vs the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India

A. Vijayalakshmi Krishna, Vs the State of Kerala

Sree Vidhyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College Vs Kesavendra Kumar IAS

Pradeep Kumar. K Vs Varadarajan S.

The Managing Director Vs Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

Binu Viswambharan Vs the Senior Divisional Manager