Mohammed Musthafa.C vs Nbfc Ombudsman
2021 Latest Caselaw 21161 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 21652 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

         MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA.C.,
         AGED 39 YEARS,
         S/O.BEERANKUTTY, CHEMMANCHERRY HOUSE,
         THARISSU P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1    NBFC OMBUDSMAN,
         OFFICE OF THE NBFC OMBUDSMAN,
         C/O.RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
         FORT GLACIS, CHENNAI-600 001.

    2    CHEMMANNUR CREDITS AND INVESTMENTS LTD.,
         PANDIKKADU, PANDIKKADU P.O.,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 521,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

    3    THE MANAGER,
         CHEMMANNUR CREDITS AND INVESTMENTS LTD.,
         PANDIKKADU, PANDIKKADU P.O.,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 521.



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.21652/2021
                                 :2 :



                         JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th day of October, 2021

The petitioner states that he has availed financial

assistance from the 2nd respondent-Bank by pledging gold

ornaments. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner

could not repay the loan instalments promptly. The petitioner

learnt that the 2nd respondent-Bank is going to sell the gold

ornaments in auction, without issuing any notice to the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner would submit that the proposal of the

2nd respondent to auction the gold ornaments of the petitioner

is without issuing notice and without following the procedure

laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. In the circumstances,

the petitioner seeks to direct respondents 2 and 3 not to

conduct auction sale of the gold ornaments of the petitioner

without proper notice regarding the recovery of the due.

3. When this writ petition came up today, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that to the best of the WP(C) No.21652/2021

information received by the petitioner, the auction has already

been taken place and the petitioner will be satisfied if a

direction is given to the 1st respondent-Ombudsman to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P2.

4. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in

this writ petition, notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

5. As the petitioner has preferred a complaint before

the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Scheme for

Non-Banking Financial Companies, 2018, this Court is of the

considered opinion that it will be appropriate to direct the 1 st

respondent-Ombudsman to consider the complaint of the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P2 complaint, after issuing notice to the respondent in

Ext.P2 also and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner as well as the respondent in Ext.P2.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/20.10.2021 WP(C) No.21652/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21652/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.10.2021.

Exhibit P3            THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY
                      THE   RESERVE    BANK    OF   INDIA   DATED
                      16.09.2013.


SR