Madras High Court
M.S.Rama Mohan Rao vs Reserve Bank Of India on 22 September, 2021
WP No.23707 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22-09-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
WP No.23707 of 2016
And
WMP No.20311 of 2016
M.S.Rama Mohan Rao .. Petitioner
vs.
1.Reserve Bank of India,
No.16, Rajaji Salai,
Fort Glacis,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.Indian Bankers Association,
World Trade Centre,
6th Floor, Centre 1 Building,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Cuff Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
3.The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
10, 3rd Cross Street,
CP Ramaswamy Road,
R.A.Puram Branch,
R.A.Puram,
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.23707 of 2016
Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Service Branch,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Chennai – 600 029.
5.Mr.Balaji Ramasubbu .. Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 3
to 5 to refund the sum of Rs.3,92,414.40, which was unlawfully debited from
the petitioner drop line over draft A/c No.01418020000221 with the third
respondent on 24th May, 2016.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ravi Raja
For Respondents-3 to 5 : Mr.Ashokpathy for
M/s.Pass Associates
For Respondents-1 and 2 : No Appearance
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the
respondents 3 to 5 to refund the sum of Rs.3,92,414/- which was unlawfully
debited from the petitioner drop line over draft A/c No.01418020000221 with
the third respondent on 24th May, 2016.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.23707 of 2016
2. The petitioner is a Senior Citizen and aged about 83 years. The
petitioner raises a complaint against the respondents 3 to 5 on the ground that
they have illegally collected money in violation of the Reserve Bank's
circulars in respect of the Drop Line Overdraft Facility from the petitioner.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the Reserve Bank of India
issued circulars in this regard and the said circulars are floated and not
followed by the respondents 4 and 5. In order to close the account, the
petitioner had settled the amount and thereafter raised an objection for refund.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 to
5 objected the said contention of the petitioner by stating that the circulars
issued by the first respondent-Reserve Bank of India, is not applicable with
reference to the transactions between the petitioner and the third respondent-
Bank. The said circulars of the Reserve Bank of India are applicable only for
the Housing Loan Facility and for Floating Rate Term Loan. Therefore, the
writ petition need not be entertained.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.23707 of 2016
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 to
5 further said that the petitioner had signed an agreement and as per the terms
and conditions of the agreement, the respondents 3 to 5 had acted and they
had not committed any irregularity or violated any of the circulars issued by
the Reserve Bank of India in this regard.
6. The disputed fact between the parties to the lis on hand cannot
be adjudicated in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The nature of the transactions as well as the terms and conditions of
the contract are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and
evidences to be produced by the respective parties.
7. An elaborate adjudication is required to ascertain the facts and
circumstances and therefore, this Court is of an opinion that such an exercise
is to be done by the Competent Authority of the first respondent-Reserve
Bank of India, as the petitioner has raised a ground that the circulars issued
by the Reserve Bank of India are being violated by the respondents 3 to 5.
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.23707 of 2016
8. This being the factum, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a
fresh representation, enclosing all relevant documents, Reserve Bank of
India's circulars, judgments relied on or other evidences, within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of
any such representation, the first respondent may appoint a Competent
Authority and to conduct an enquiry and take decision and pass orders and
communicate the same to the parties, if necessary by affording an opportunity
to the parties. Such an exercise is directed to be done, within a period of
twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the complaint/application
from the petitioner.
9. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22-09-2021
Index : Yes/No.
Internet : Yes/No.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Svn
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
http://www.judis.nic.in
WP No.23707 of 2016
To
1.Reserve Bank of India,
No.16, Rajaji Salai,
Fort Glacis,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.Indian Bankers Association,
World Trade Centre,
6th Floor, Centre 1 Building,
World Trade Centre Complex,
Cuff Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005.
3.The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
10, 3rd Cross Street,
CP Ramaswamy Road,
R.A.Puram Branch,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai – 600 028.
4.The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Service Branch,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Chennai – 600 029. WP 23707 of
22-09-2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
