Kerala High Court
Jayachandran Pillai. P vs Banking Ombudsman 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. 23089 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
JAYACHANDRAN PILLAI. P., AGED 47 YEARS
S/O PEETHAMBARAN PILLAI PALLIYAMBALAM HOUSE,
ATTINKADAVU, KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691536
GOVIND G. NAIR
BALU TOM
BONNY BENNY
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
RESPONDENTS:
1 BANKING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL
DIRECTOR, RBI OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 AXIS BANK LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE, NIHAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA MAIN
ROAD, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 'TRISHUL', 3RD FLOOR, OPP.
SAMARTHESWAR TEMPLE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD, PIN -
695002
BY ADVS.
Madhu Radhakrishnan
NELSON JOSEPH(K/380/2007)
M.D.JOSEPH(K/839/2008)
DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR(K/1624/2018)
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. 23089 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner assails Ext.P10 order of the 1 st respondent
- Banking Ombudsman, on various grounds, particularly that it
is a non-speaking one, which does not contain any reason for
the decision recorded therein, namely that foreclosure charges
are leviable by the 3rd respondent - Axis Bank Ltd. ('Bank', for
short).
2. Sri.Govind G.Nair - learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that Ext.P10 order has been issued in blatant
disregard to Ext.P1 - Sanction Letter; and therefore, that his
client has been constrained to approach this Court, assailing
the same, as being illegal and unlawful. He thus reiterated
prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be
granted.
3. I notice from the files that, even though summons from
this Court has been validly served on the 3 rd respondent -
Bank, they have chosen not to be present in person, or to be
represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to
the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to
the various allegations of the petitioner in this writ petition.
WP(C) NO. 23089 OF 2023
4. Sri.Millu Dandapani, appearing for the Banking
Ombudsman, supported Ext.P10, saying that when the terms of
the agreement between the parties allow foreclosure charges,
normally, no service deficiency can be attributed to the Bank.
He pointed out that this is exactly what has been stated by the
Ombudsman in the said order.
5. When I examine Ext.P10, I find force in the afore
submissions of the petitioner that, apart from saying that " As
per the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant,
foreclosure charges are leviable. No service deficiency can be
attributed to the bank on the basis of available documents. "
(sic), the 1st respondent - Ombudsman has not cited any
reason in justification of such conclusion.
6. Therefore, this Court is persuaded to accept the
contentions of the petitioner, that Ext.P10 has been issued by
the Ombudsman, merely accepting the version of the Bank in
toto; but without assessing or evaluating it, based on the other
relevant documents and inputs made available by him.
7. In the above perspective, I am certain that this matter
will require to be reconsidered by the Ombudsman because,
Ext.P10, from any angle it is evaluated from, comes across as
WP(C) NO. 23089 OF 2023
one issued without citing any germane reason to support the
conclusions therein.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P10; with a consequential direction to the 1 st
respondent to reconsider Ext.P8 complaint of the petitioner,
adverting to Ext.P1, after affording necessary opportunity of
being heard to the parties; thus culminating in an appropriate
order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 23089 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23089/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SANCTION
LETTER ALONG WITH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BANK DATED 16.03.2018
ExhibitP2 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LOAN
AGREEMENT FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED LOAN
ACCOUNT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER,
THE CO-BORROWER AND THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BANK DATED 04.04.2018
ExhibitP3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.13(2)
OF SARFAESI ACT BEARING
NO.AXI/RACTRIVANDRUM/ LAW/13(2)/2021
DATED 26.11.2021
ExhibitP4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
31.03.2022 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ExhibitP5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2022
Exhibit P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
NODAL OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BANK DATED 16.05.2022
Exhibit P7 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED
BY THE NODAL OFFICER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2022
ExhibitP8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 30.10.2022
Exhibit P9 THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE E-MAIL
COMMUNICATION FROM THE REGULATORY DESK
OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 15.12.2022 ALONG WITH THE
ATTACHMENTS
WP(C) NO. 23089 OF 2023
ExhibitP10 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.
RBI/CMS/N202223023295045/2022-23 DATED
10.02.2023 SENT BY E-MAIL TO THE
PETITIONER
ExhibitP11 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.RBI/2011-12/589 DATED 05.06.2012
Exhibit P12 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.RBI/2013-14/582 DATED 07.05.2014
ExhibitP13 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING
NO.RBI/2019-20/29 DATED 02.08.2019
