S Manoj Pillai @ Manoj vs Union Bank Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 4451 Ker

Kerala High Court

S Manoj Pillai @ Manoj vs Union Bank Of India on 6 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 12271 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

          S.MANOJ PILLAI @ MANOJ
          AGED 32 YEARS
          SON OF SHRI SHIVASANKARAN PILLAI, HARISHREE HOUSE,
          PERANDOOR ROAD, PULLIATT, ELAMAKKARA P.O,
          ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682026
          BY ADVS.
          LUKE J CHIRAYIL
          AMAL JOSE
          ELSA MARY THOMAS


RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION BANK OF INDIA
          PALARIVATTOM - EDAPPALLY RD, DEVANKULANGARA,
          MAMANGALAM, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, PIN - 682024
    2     THE MANAGER
          UNION BANK OF INDIA PALARIVATTOM - EDAPPALLY ROAD,
          DEVANKULANGARA, MAMANGALAM, ELAMAKKARA,
          ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682024
    *3    ADDL.R3: BIJU MATHEW,
          AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.K MATHEW, RESIDING AT
          MATTAMANA HOUSE, OPPOSITE DISTRICT FAMILY COURT,
          KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682017.
          *(ADDNL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.09.2023
          IN IA 1/23)
          BY ADVS.
          ASP.KURUP
          MILLU DANDAPANI
          SADCHITH.P.KURUP(K/1419/2002)
          C.P.ANIL RAJ(K/872/2007)
          SIVA SURESH(K/2688/2022)
          RESHMA RAJ(K/1150/2021)
          SRI. A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12271 OF 2023            2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to have had availed of a loan from the 1 st

respondent - Union Bank of India and to have purchased a vehicle

with it; but that he could not comply with the repayment loan schedule

as per the original sanction due to various unavoidable reasons. He

says that, in the meanwhile, he found a buyer for the vehicle, namely

the 3rd respondent; and that negotiations were entered into by him,

with the permission of the Bank so as to settle the loan account, to

thus enable its transfer to his name, by the issuance of necessary No

Objection Certificate (NOC) and such other. He says that thus, the 3 rd

respondent remitted an amount of Rs.4,42,500/-, which was the

outstanding in the loan account as on 30.08.2022; but conceding that

this was paid not into the loan account, but into his savings bank

account, asserting this was as suggested by the then Manager of the

Bank.

2. The petitioner says that, subsequently, for some reason, the

Bank did not transfer this amount into the loan account and the

amount continued to be in his savings account, to be finally adjusted

to the said account only on 17.02.2023, thus closing it. He says that,

therefore, once the account has been thus closed, the Bank is

obligated to issue the necessary 'NOC' and such other documents, so

as to enable the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the 3 rd respondent

forthwith.

3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Luke J. Chirayil -

learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sadchith Kurup - learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent - Bank, explained that his client

had only a limited role in the transaction between the petitioner and

the 3rd respondent; and that their only interest was that the entire

amount due to them, against the loan account, be settled and it be

closed at the earliest. He argued that the assertions of the petitioner,

that the 3rd respondent had remitted the afore mentioned amount into

the savings account of the petitioner at the instance of the Manager at

that time, is not only untenable, but contrary to reason because, if the

parties wanted to settle the account, then it would have been open to

the latter to have remitted it directly into the loan account, whether

he was instructed to do otherwise - assuming it to be true - by the

then Manager or anyone else. He then added that, it was eventually

through a letter issued by the petitioner on 16.02.2023, that the Bank

was able to transfer the amount remitted by the 3 rd respondent into

the loan account; and that this was so done on 17.02.2023, thus

substantially reducing the balance in the account, but with a residue

amount of Rs.53,310/-. He submitted, that, therefore, if the petitioner,

or the 3rd respondent, pays this amount, the necessary NOC and

clearances for transfer of the vehicle in favour of the latter, can be

given.

4. Sri.Millu Dandapani - learned counsel for the 3rd respondent,

affirmed that his client had entered into an agreement with the

petitioner to purchase the vehicle in question; and that he did so

without notice of any other dispute between him and the Bank. He

submitted that his client trusted the words of the petitioner, thus

remitting the sale consideration of the vehicle directly into his savings

account, and that he was under the legitimate expectation that, on

doing so, the Bank will issue the 'NOC' in his favour. He submitted

that, however, this expectation was wholly breached by the fact that

the petitioner refused to pay the said amount into the loan account,

leading to certain disputes between them to subsist. He asserted that

his client is only a victim of circumstances, over which, he had no

control; and that he had blindly followed what was told to him by the

petitioner and by the Manager of the Bank. He contended that,

therefore, his client cannot be put to any further prejudice, solely

because the petitioner retained the amount in his savings account,

without issuing authority to the Bank to transfer it into the loan

account.

5. In reply, Sri.Luke J. Chirayil - learned counsel for the

petitioner, refuted the submissions of Sri.Sadchith Kurup, saying that,

when the amount was remitted by the 3 rd respondent into his client's

savings account, it was promised by the then Manager that eligible

concessions will be offered and that the money will thereafter alone be

required to be transferred into the loan account. He submitted that, in

fact, his client did not give any authority to the Bank, even on

16.02.2023, to transfer the amount into the loan account; and that

what has been produced on record by the Bank is only his client's

request to issue the 'NOC' in favour of the 3rd respondent qua the

vehicle in question. He submitted that, therefore, his client is fully

justified in having approached this Court, seeking a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 to waive the amount of Rs.53,310/-, which is

stated to be still remaining as a residue in the loan account.

6. I have carefully evaluated the rival submissions on the

touchstone of the various documents that are available on record.

7. It is indubitable from the rival positions adopted by the

petitioner and the 3rd respondent that, they had an arrangement

between themselves, by which, the latter would buy the vehicle from

the former, on payment of the amounts due to the Bank, as on

30.08.2022. This figure of Rs.4,42,500/- was thus, admittedly, paid by

the 3rd respondent into the savings account of the petitioner; and there

is no dispute about this, except that the latter asserts that this was

done at the instance of the then Manager. However, this assertion

remains uncorroborated, and unsubstantiated, even by the pleadings

on record.

8. Therefore, as matters stood, the afore amount continued in

the savings account of the petitioner, without it being adjusted into his

loan account; and it is also fairly clear - going by the submissions at

the Bar and the pleadings on record - that there were some subsisting

disputes between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in the

interregnum. It transpires that the petitioner addressed the Bank only

on 16.02.2023, with a letter now produced on record by the Bank,

asking 'NOC' to be issued to the 3rd respondent; and this can only

mean, as is clear therefrom, that he authorized the transfer of the

amount from his savings account into the loan account on that day.

9. It is indubitable - whatever be the contentions that the

learned counsel for the petitioner may impel in this regard - that it is

only if the loan account is paid off fully, could the Bank issue the

'NOC' and not otherwise.

10. One fails to understand how the petitioner did not fathom

this; and, if he is to now say that he wanted only the 'NOC' to be

issued to the 3rd respondent, through his letter now produced on

record by the Bank, it can only be taken with the pinch of salt

because, it is obvious that no such would have been possible, even if

he wanted to, without the payment being affected into the loan

account.

11. Therefore, the only axiomatic inference possible is that the

petitioner authorized the transfer of the money from his savings bank

account into the loan account, through his letter dated 16.02.2023

now produced by the Bank; based on which alone, the transfer was so

effected, leading to the balance in the loan account to be attenuated to

a residue balance of Rs.53,310/-.

12. Interestingly, it is the afore figure which is now the point of

controversy between the parties, with the petitioner saying that he is

not liable to remit the same; but the Bank insisting that he should, if

he is to be permitted to transfer the vehicle.

13. In the midst, is the 3rd respondent, who has been caught in

the cross fire and who has been waiting for registration of the vehicle

in his name, though he paid the afore amount and even some sums in

addition to it, in favour of the petitioner.

14. I, therefore, asked Sri.Sadchith Kurup if his client is willing

to reduce the balance in the loan account of the petitioner in any

manner; and he fairly submitted that a sum of Rs.18,308/- can be

waived, provided he pays the resultant balance of Rs.35,002/-

immediately.

15. In the afore scenario, all which this Court can do is to allow

the petitioner to pay off the afore sum to the Bank; in which event,

they can be directed to issue necessary 'NOC' and such other to the

said respondent to facilitate the transfer of the vehicle in question.

16. Sri.Luke J.Chirayil - learned counsel for the petitioner,

presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as afore, interdicted

saying that his client is going through extreme financial crisis, and

pleaded that he be given sufficient time to pay off the aforesaid

amount.

17. At this time, Sri.Millu Dandapani - learned counsel for the 3 rd

respondent submitted that if the petitioner does not make payment of

the afore said amount within the time frame to be fixed by this Court,

then liberty may be reserved to his client to honour and recover it as

per law.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition with the

following directions:

(a) The petitioner is directed to pay the afore said amount of

Rs.35,002/- within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

(b) If the aforesaid amount in the loan account is paid by the

petitioner, then the Bank will immediately issue necessary 'NOC' and

such other documents to the 3rd respondent, so as to enable him to

have the registration of the vehicle in question transferred in his

name.

(c) If, for any reason, the petitioner does not make payment in

terms of direction (a) above, I leave liberty to the 3 rd respondent to

honour the sum and to recover it from the former in terms of law; for

which purpose all contentions in that regard are left open.

To be spoken to order dated 16.02.2023:

This matter has been listed today for being spoken to at the

instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that

his client has requested the Bank for concessions as are available.

2. Sri.Sadchith Kurup - learned Standing Counsel for the Bank,

very fairly submitted that, adverting to the spirit of the judgment

dictated by this Court and in order to obtain full fairness, his clients

are willing to reduce the balance payable by the petitioner to

Rs.35,002/-. He submitted that, if this amount is given, the directions

in the judgment can be fully complied with.

In the afore circumstances, I clarify that the amount mentioned

in the afore judgment will be read as being Rs.35,000/- provided the

petitioner pays the same within a period of ten days from the date of

receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/7.2

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12271/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGEMENT IN B.A. NO. 7009 OF 2022, B.A. NO. 840 OF 2023 AND W.P.(CRL) 44/2023, DATED 27.02.2023 ON THE FILES OF THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1 A A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT DATED 11.09.2023 Exhibit R1 B A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF CONSENT DATED 16.2.2023 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R3 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL SENT BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT MANAGER ON 31.08.2022 ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED LETTER Exhibit R3 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE BANK TRANSACTION THAT THE AMOUNT DIRECTED TO BE PAID WAS DEPOSITED, DATED 30.08.2022.

Exhibit R3 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION.