Sunil Kumar.P.G vs Kotak Mahindra Private Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 1444 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                     WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)


PETITIONER:

              SUNIL KUMAR.P.G.,
              AGED 52 YEARS,
              S/O.P.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SHANTHI NIVAS,
              MANGANAM P.O., VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE,
              KOTTAYAM-686 018.

              BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB

RESPONDENT:

              KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIVATE LTD.,
              REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER, IVTH FLOOR, PAYYIL
              KOHINOOR ARCADE, SANKRANTHI JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686
              028.

              BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
                       SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
                       SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
                       SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
                       SMT.P.PARVATHY
                       SMT.SURYA P SHAJI
                       SMT.AATHIRA SUNNY
                       SRI.MANAS P HAMEED
                       SRI.ELDHO.N.MONCY
                       SRI.SHANAVAS K.A.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

                                     2



                                JUDGMENT

The complaint of the petitioner in

this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent

Bank realised charges from the petitioner by

presenting the cheque several times in the

very same month and realised bouncing/

dishonour charges from the petitioner at the

rate of Rs.885/-.

2. It is stated that even during

moratorium period, such dishonour charges are

realised by unnecessarily presenting the

cheque. It is stated that a sum of Rs.77,880/-

was realised from the petitioner towards this

unnecessary demand and illegal action of the

respondent. It is pointed out that the

dishonour charges are realised even six times

in the very same month in order to harass the

petitioner. At the same time, it is stated

that another financial institution presented WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

the cheque only once and no such charges are

realised. It is pointed out that even though

the cheque was bounced, the charges are

realised only once, pointing out Ext.P2.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ

petition for a direction to the respondent to

refund a sum of Rs.77,800/- recovered from him

for 88 bounces and another sum of Rs.8,850/-

recovered during the moratorium period and for

adjusting the same towards the outstanding

amount in his loan account. The action of the

respondent in presenting a cheque for

clearance six to eight times in a month and

for realisation of the same appears prima

facie unjustified. Six instalments are still

due to the respondent, petitioner claims

adjustment of this amount towards the said

instalments.

4. I heard the learned Standing Counsel

also.

WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)

As there is prima facie illegality on

the part of the respondents, I am of the view

that the petitioner has to submit a

representation before the respondent pointing

out his grievance and request for adjustment.

On receipt of the same, the respondent shall

consider the same and take a decision on it

taking note of Ext.P2 also. Petitioner would

also be free to approach the statutory

authorities also in the meanwhile, if so

advised.

             Accordingly,         the    writ      petition    is

    disposed of.                                       Sd/-

                                                   P.V.ASHA
                                                     JUDGE
    ww
 WP(C).No.25716 OF 2020(L)






                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AS ON

23.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 22.06.2020 RECEIVED FROM HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF PETITIONER.