Kerala High Court
Sathija S vs The Manager Bank Of Maharashtra on 15 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 5247 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SATHIJA S., AGED 50 YEARS, SREE RUDRAM,
EDAKKOTTUKONATHU VEEDU KOLLAMKONAM,VILAPPILSALA.P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695573
KEERTHI SOLOMON
M.V.SMITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MANAGER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
VATTIYOORKAVU BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013
2 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
C/O RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NO.6501, BAKERY JUNCTION
NANDAVANAM,PALAYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5247 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Even though the petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order of the
Banking Ombudsman, when this matter was called today, her
learned counsel - Smt.Keerthi Solomon, confined her plea that
this Court adjudicate the classification of her client's account as
a Non Performing Asset (NPA), asserting it has been done in
violation of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines.
2. Sri.T.A.Prakash - learned standing counsel for the
respondent - Bank, however, submitted that such an issue was
never raised before the Ombudsman; and that, as evident from
Ext.P8, all that the petitioner assailed was the "non capturing of
payments made by her in her loan account and wrong interest
calculation" (sic). He argued that, therefore, the afore relief
cannot be granted by this Court in this writ petition.
3. I must say that there is force in the afore contentions of
the learned standing counsel for the Bank because, as correctly
argued by him, the petitioner approached the Banking
Ombudsman only against the wrong calculation of interest by
the Bank and on the allegation that they had not given credit to
some of her payments. This has been found against her; but as
WP(C) NO. 5247 OF 2024
is limpid from the above, what she is really aggrieved about is
the factum of her loan account having been classified as an
"NPA" as early as in November, 2018.
4. Obviously, therefore, if the petitioner has any contention
against the classification as such, she must invoke other
remedies as are available to her in law, but she cannot seek this
Court to make such a declaration under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
In the afore circumstances, without entering into the
merits of any of the rival contentions, or the merits of Ext.P8
order of the Ombudsman, and leaving them open; I close this
writ petition; however, granting full liberty to the petitioner to
challenge any proceeding of the Bank in terms of law, for which
purpose, all contentions in such regard are left undecided.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 5247 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5247/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE STATEMENT ISSUED
FROM THE BANK DATED 06.11.2021
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT DETAILS DATED
18/06/2022
Exhibit P 3 TRUE COPIES OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
DATED 22/06/2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT ISSUED FROM THE BANK
DATED 18.06.2022
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
27..06.2022
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE BANKING OMBUDSMAN ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26/09/2023
Exhibit P 7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
REPLY WITH RELEVANT PORTION OF BANK
STATEMENT DATED 11.12.2023 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BANK
Exhibit P 8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF THE ORDER
OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04/01/2024
