Disposed

Laxman Singh v. Icici Bank, Jaipur

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2023SAW/583/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition alleging illegal deduction of Rs.8,20,000 by ICICI Bank as overdraft interest. The High Court held it was not appropriate to interfere with the impugned order as the matter involved a disputed question of fact regarding payment of dues and directed the appellant to approach the Banking Ombudsman.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal disposed of with liberty to approach the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur for redressal.

Laxman Singh Vs Icici Bank, Jaipur — Banking and Recovery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 583/2023

¶4

Laxman Singh S/o Shri Jassu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, Village Post Sidhmukh, Tehsil Sidhmukh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Icici Bank, Jaipur, Through Its Regional Manager, Office At C-3, Sardar Patel Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur (302001)

¶8

Branch Manager, Icici Bank Branch Sidhmukh, Tehsil Sidhmukh, District Churu.

¶9

Branch Manager, Icici Bank Branch Sherda, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶13

Judgment

¶14

14/12/2023

¶15

This present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8705/2022 (Laxman Singh Vs. ICICI Bank & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, has refused to interfere in the matter.

¶16

The appellant has filed the above mentioned writ petition before the learned Single Judge with a grievance that he was appointed on the post of Clerk on 29.07.1985 in the Bank of Rajasthan, which was later on merged into the ICICI Bank. It is submitted that the appellant was retired from service on

¶17

[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB]

¶18

[SAW-583/2023]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

31.01.2020 and at that time, No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour, wherein it finds that no dues are pending against the appellant.

¶21

It is alleged that despite issuing the said No Dues Certificate, the respondent-ICICI Bank has illegally deducted amount of Rs.8,20,000/- from the bank account of the appellant claiming that the appellant availed facility of overdraft of Rs.2,50,000/- in the year 2010, however, he has failed to make the payment of the said overdraft and the interest charged upon it.

¶22

The appellant has contested the said stand of the respondent-ICICI Bank and when he was not satisfied with the response filed by the bank, approached this Court by way of filing the writ petition. It appears that reply to the writ petition has not been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in the Registry, however, the same was produced before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition and the learned Single Judge, while relying on the reply filed on behalf of the respondentBank, passed the impugned order.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he placed reliance on certain copies of the details of bank account of the appellant before the learned Single Judge and argued that as a matter of fact, the whole overdraft amount has already been deducted from the salary of the appellant while he was in service, but the respondent-Bank illegally deducted the amount of Rs.8,20,000/- without there being any justification.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that as per the terms on which the overdraft facility was given to the appellant, the bank was required to deduct monthly installment

¶25

[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB]

¶26

[SAW-583/2023]

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

along with interest from the salary account of the appellant. It is further submitted that after 2015, the respondent-Bank itself has stopped deducting the installment along with interest from the salary account of the appellant, which clearly suggests that the whole amount of the overdraft has been paid by the appellant.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and illegally refused to interfere in the writ petition filed by the appellant.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant; after going through the material available on record, particularly the reply filed on behalf of the appellant-Bank, we are of the view that a disputed question regarding payment or non-payment of the overdraft amount is involved in this writ petition filed by the appellant.

¶31

It appears that in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant, the respondent-Bank has sent its reply, to the appellant. In the said reply, it is clearly mentioned that the bank referred the case details of the appellant to the internal Ombudsman of the bank, who examined the case and expressed that the reply being given by the Bank’s internal grievance mechanism is in order. It is further mentioned in the reply that in case, the appellant is not satisfied with the response of the bank and wishes to further pursue the matter, he may approach the office of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India of his region located in Rajasthan for redressal of his grievances. In the reply, the contact details of Banking Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India are also given.

¶32

[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB]

¶33

[SAW-583/2023]

¶34

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstance of the case, this special appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the office of the Banking Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur by way of filing an appropriate representation for redressal of his grievances.

¶35

If any such representation is filed by the appellant up to 30^th January, 2024, it is expected that the Banking Ombudsman of the Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur shall consider and decide the same by providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant by a detailed and speaking order within four weeks thereafter.

¶36

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶37

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶38

5-poonamS/-

Laxman Singh v. Icici Bank, Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Singh v. Icici Bank, Jaipur

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

Radheyshyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Khan Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Vs M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Man Singh Vs Nishant Jain

Dinesh Chandra Vs Mr. Anand Kumar