Disposed

S.Vijayakumar v. The Honourable Ombudsman

Madras HC11 Nov 2021WP/24078/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the Regional Chief Ombudsman to consider the petitioner's complaint regarding aggressive loan recovery by RBL Bank and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks, without adjudicating the merits of the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint passed on 01.10.2021 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

S.Vijayakumar Vs The Honourable Ombudsman — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.24078 of 2021

S.Vijayakumar

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Honourable Ombudsman C/o.Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Chennai – 600 001.

¶10

2.The Manager, RBL Bank Limited, Ground Floor, Nibav Building, No.11, LB Road, Adyar, Chennai-20. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action against second respondent to follow the due process of law, regarding collection of loan amount, as guided by Reserve Bank of India forthwith petitioner complaint dated 01.10.2021.

¶12

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take action against the second respondent to follow the due process of law, regarding collection of loan amount, as guided by Reserve Bank of India forthwith petitioner complaint dated 01.10.2021.

¶13

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner obtained loan of a sum of Rs.3,07,576/- from the second respondent during the month of August 2018 vide loan agreement No.0007477770002326350 and has repaid a sum of Rs.1,71,510/- and due to the pandemic situation, the petitioner

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

was not able to pay the monthly installment, however, to his shock and surprise the recovery team of the second respondent is threatening the petitioner to pay the abnormal arrears of Rs.1,64,481/-. Hence the petitioner made complaint/ representation dated 101.10.2021 to the first respondent, however, the first respondent has not taken any action. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without going into the merits of the case, it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint/ representation dated 01.10.2021 and to pass appropriate orders, within the reasonable time fixed by this Court.

¶17

4.Considering the limited request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs first respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint/ representation dated 01.10.2021, on merits and in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

5.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

rli

¶24

¶25

The Honourable Ombudsman C/o.Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, Chennai – 600 001.

¶26

W.P.No.24078 of 2021

¶27

SJ(CO) RVM(10/12/2021)

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Vijayakumar v. The Honourable Ombudsman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayakumar v. The Honourable Ombudsman

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

S.Evangline Vs S.Suseela

J.Sathiyaraj Vs Union of India

E.Prem Kumar Vs Union of India

M/s.Pacifica (Chennai Project) Vs The District Collector

Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

S.Anandavel Vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu