Nobin P.J vs The Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 19697 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 1712 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            NOBIN P.J
            AGED 29 YEARS
            S/O. P.J JOHN, PERUMPALLY HOUSE, JUBILEE NAGAR,
            COCHIN 682 001 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
            BY ADVS.
            SHERRY J. THOMAS
            SHRI.JOSEPH C.V.(CHELAKKATT)
            SMT.THAMANA BAI
            SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
            SRI.JOEMON ANTONY

RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE MANAGER,
            INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE COMPANY (IDFC)
            FIRST BANK,54/3106C, 1ST FLOOR, GRACE CORNEER ,
            K.K ROAD, KADAVANTHARA JUNCTION, KADAVANTHARA,
            ERNAKULAM 682 020
    2       THE DIRECTOR,
            INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANC E COMPANY (IDFC)
            FIRST BANK LTD, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT KRM
            TOWERS, 7TH FLOOR NO. 1, HARRINGTON ROAD, CHETPET,
            CHENNAI 600 031
    3       THE GENERAL MANAGER,
            REGIONAL OFFICE, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BANERJI
            ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 018
     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   17.09.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.1712/2021

                                      2




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                        -------------------------------
                       W.P.(C).No.1712 of 2021
                ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the original loan account of 240 months tenure and Rs.23,693/- EMI in connection with petitioner's loan account.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider the Ext. P4 and rectify the mistake.

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Direction to the 3rd Respondent to direct 1st Respondent Bank to consider Ext P4 and rectify the mistake.

iv. Such other relief's that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper to grant, in the interest of justice.

v. Provide cost of the proceedings.

W.P.(C).No.1712/2021

2. The petitioner is an industrious job aspirant and by

his own effort, availed a loan from the 1 st respondent Bank for

his educational purpose and other personal affairs. Pursuant

to the loan, he was doing his education in Germany and for

time being he is now in India due to Covid-19 outbreak. The

loan was sanctioned to the petitioner in June 2019 by the

respondent Bank. An amount of Rs.17,50,000/- was sanctioned

with interest at the rate of 15.50% per annuam. EMI for the

said loan was Rs.23,693/- and the tenure of the loan was 240

months. The petitioner was ready to make repayment as per

the EMI schedule and there is no single event of default. But,

after the outbreak of Covid-19 in the nation, the office of the

1st respondent intimated the petitioner that whether he want

to avail moratorium and the petitioner replied that he is not in

need of moratorium and he does not want to avail the same.

The petitioner orally and also through mail intimated his

intention of not availing moratorium to the 1 st respondent

Bank. It is the case of the petitioner that without the consent

of the petitioner, despite any default in the loan repayment,

the installment tenure is shown as 441 months, and it is seen

extended to 02.04.2056, that is 41 years instead of 240 W.P.(C).No.1712/2021

months, and the petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.one

crore altogether for the amount of Rs.17,50,000/-. This is the

grievance of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed.

3. This Court issued notice to the respondents. Even

after service of notice, there is no appearance for respondents

1 and 2.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. I think there is some force in the arguments of the

petitioner. The petitioner already preferred Ext.P4

representation narrating his grievances. According to me, the

1st respondent has to look into this and pass appropriate

orders in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following

manner:

1. The 1st respondent is directed to consider

Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders in it, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within one month from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

2. All the contentions of the petitioner in this writ W.P.(C).No.1712/2021

petition are left open and the petitioner is free

to raise all these contentions before the 1 st

respondent at the time of hearing.

3. If the petitioner is not in station, he can

authorise a person to represent him at the

time of hearing by the 1st respondent.

Sd/-

                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                            JUDGE
 W.P.(C).No.1712/2021





                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1712/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1        THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN CONFIRMATION

LETTER DATED 27-06-2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 15-

06-2020 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT DATED 24-12-2020 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7-1-2021 EXHIBIT P4A THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7-

1-2021 EXHIBIT P4B TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 8-1-2021