Kerala High Court
Gurudeva Trust vs The Regional Head on 6 February, 2024
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 7552 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
1 GURUDEVA TRUST
AGED 57 YEARS
REGISTERED NO.65/IV/2001, THEKKETHAZHAM, MANJALI, MANNAM PO,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 520, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY MR.P.PRAKASAN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO
SRI.I.M.MANOJ
SRI.R.D.NIKIL KARATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL HEAD
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
2 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, BAKERY JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
3 FEDERAL BANK LTD.
NORTH PARAVUR BRANCH, NORTH PARAVUR-683 513, REP. BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER.
4 CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR
FEDERAL BANK LTD., FEDERAL TOWERS, ALUVA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI - R1
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE- R3
SMT.ARUNIMA LAURANCE
SMT.P.V.PARVATHI
SMT.REENA THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C.)NO.7552 OF 2015
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024
The petitioner is a Charitable Trust, which availed
credit facility from the 3rd respondent Bank. According
to the petitioner, the petitioner had paid off the entire
liability through take over by another financial
institution. The petitioner has approached this Court
being aggrieved by the fact that, the 3 rd respondent
Bank has charged an amount towards foreclosure
charges. It is the case of the petitioner that, in terms of
Ext.P16 Circular of the Reserve Bank of India, no
foreclosure charges can be levied. The petitioner filed a
complaint before the Banking Ombudsman which was
rejected by Ext.P13 order, prompting the petitioner to
approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent Bank would submit that the entire claim of
the petitioner for waiver of foreclosure charges is
W.P.(C.)NO.7552 OF 2015
premise on the fact that no foreclosure charges can be
levied in terms of Ext.P16 Circular of the Reserve Bank
of India. It is submitted that Ext.P16 Circular of the
Reserve Bank of India applies only to individual
borrowers and that too, in respect of housing loans and
will not therefore apply to the overdraft facility availed
by the petitioner, which is admittedly a Trust. It is
pointed out that the foreclosure charges were levied in
terms of Ext.P1 sanction and since the petitioner is
bound by the terms of the sanction, it cannot turn
around and challenge the levy of foreclosure charges.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the
Reserve Bank of India would submit that, Ext.P16
Circular is not applicable to loans other than the loans
extended to individuals, though the terms of Ext.P16
indicate that it may be applicable to term loans availed
by individual borrowers also. It is submitted that, it is
very clear from the terms of Ext.P16 that the same will
not extend to loans availed by a Trust.
W.P.(C.)NO.7552 OF 2015
4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3 rd
respondent Bank and the learned Counsel appearing for
the Reserve Bank of India, I am of the view that the
petitioner has not made out any case for interference.
Ext.P16 is a copy of Circular bearing
No.DBOD.Dir.BC.No.110/13.03.00/2013-14 dated
07.05.2014. It is clear from the reading of Ext.P16 that,
the Circular applies only to floating rate term loans
sanctioned to individual borrowers and does not apply
to any other loan. Ext.P14 is another Circular issued by
the Reserve Bank of India as Circular Bearing
No.DBOD.No.Dir.BC.No.107/13.03.00/2011-12 dated
05.06.2012, a reading of which also indicates that
waiver of foreclosure charges is applicable only to home
loans.
5. Having considered the contentions raised and
also taking into account the fact that the entire claim of
the petitioner is based on Exts.P14 and P16 Circulars
W.P.(C.)NO.7552 OF 2015
issued by the Reserve Bank of India, I am of the view
that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant
of the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition.
The writ petition fails and it is accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
NB/6-2
W.P.(C.)NO.7552 OF 2015
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7552/2015
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 SANCTION LETTER DT 9.8.2012
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF REPAYMENT SCHEDULE.
EXHIBIT P3 LETTER DT. 7.5.2014
EXHIBIT P4 LETTER DT. 27.5.2014
EXHIBIT P5 REPLY DT 30.5.2014
EXHIBIT P6 LETTER DT 3.6.2014
EXHIBIT P7 ACCOUNT STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT P8 NOTICE DATED 7.7.2014.
EXHIBIT P9 COMPLAINT BEFORE OMBUDSMAN
EXHIBIT P10 REPLY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 ORDER DT 19.6.2014.
EXHIBIT P12 ORDER DT 18.6.2014
EXHIBIT P13 CLOSING LETTER DT 5.12.2014
EXHIBIT P14 RBI CIRCULAR DT 5.6.2012
EXHIBIT P15 MONTHLY POLICY STATEMENT 1.4.2014
EXHIBIT P16 RBI CIRCULAR DT 7.5.2014
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
