Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxman Singh vs Icici Bank, Jaipur ... on 14 December, 2023
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 583/2023
Laxman Singh S/o Shri Jassu Singh, Aged About 62 Years,
Village Post Sidhmukh, Tehsil Sidhmukh, District Churu
(Rajasthan).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Icici Bank, Jaipur, Through Its Regional Manager, Office At
C-3, Sardar Patel Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur (302001)
2. Branch Manager, Icici Bank Branch Sidhmukh, Tehsil
Sidhmukh, District Churu.
3. Branch Manager, Icici Bank Branch Sherda, Tehsil Bhadra,
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Moti Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
14/12/2023
This present appeal has been filed by the appellant being
aggrieved with the order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8705/2022 (Laxman
Singh Vs. ICICI Bank & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge,
while dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, has refused to
interfere in the matter.
The appellant has filed the above mentioned writ petition
before the learned Single Judge with a grievance that he was
appointed on the post of Clerk on 29.07.1985 in the Bank of
Rajasthan, which was later on merged into the ICICI Bank. It is
submitted that the appellant was retired from service on
[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-583/2023]
31.01.2020 and at that time, No Dues Certificate was issued in his
favour, wherein it finds that no dues are pending against the
appellant.
It is alleged that despite issuing the said No Dues Certificate,
the respondent-ICICI Bank has illegally deducted amount of
Rs.8,20,000/- from the bank account of the appellant claiming
that the appellant availed facility of overdraft of Rs.2,50,000/- in
the year 2010, however, he has failed to make the payment of the
said overdraft and the interest charged upon it.
The appellant has contested the said stand of the
respondent-ICICI Bank and when he was not satisfied with the
response filed by the bank, approached this Court by way of filing
the writ petition. It appears that reply to the writ petition has not
been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank in the Registry,
however, the same was produced before the learned Single Judge
at the time of hearing of the writ petition and the learned Single
Judge, while relying on the reply filed on behalf of the respondent-
Bank, passed the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he
placed reliance on certain copies of the details of bank account of
the appellant before the learned Single Judge and argued that as
a matter of fact, the whole overdraft amount has already been
deducted from the salary of the appellant while he was in service,
but the respondent-Bank illegally deducted the amount of
Rs.8,20,000/- without there being any justification.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that
as per the terms on which the overdraft facility was given to the
appellant, the bank was required to deduct monthly installment
[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-583/2023]
along with interest from the salary account of the appellant. It is
further submitted that after 2015, the respondent-Bank itself has
stopped deducting the installment along with interest from the
salary account of the appellant, which clearly suggests that the
whole amount of the overdraft has been paid by the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the
above aspect of the matter and illegally refused to interfere in the
writ petition filed by the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant; after going
through the material available on record, particularly the reply
filed on behalf of the appellant-Bank, we are of the view that a
disputed question regarding payment or non-payment of the
overdraft amount is involved in this writ petition filed by the
appellant.
It appears that in response to the legal notice sent by the
appellant, the respondent-Bank has sent its reply, to the
appellant. In the said reply, it is clearly mentioned that the bank
referred the case details of the appellant to the internal
Ombudsman of the bank, who examined the case and expressed
that the reply being given by the Bank's internal grievance
mechanism is in order. It is further mentioned in the reply that in
case, the appellant is not satisfied with the response of the bank
and wishes to further pursue the matter, he may approach the
office of the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India of his
region located in Rajasthan for redressal of his grievances. In the
reply, the contact details of Banking Ombudsman of Reserve Bank
of India are also given.
[2023:RJ-JD:43657-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-583/2023]
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstance
of the case, this special appeal is disposed of with liberty to the
appellant to approach the office of the Banking Ombudsman of the
Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur by way of filing an appropriate
representation for redressal of his grievances.
If any such representation is filed by the appellant up to 30 th
January, 2024, it is expected that the Banking Ombudsman of the
Reserve Bank of India, Jaipur shall consider and decide the same
by providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant by a
detailed and speaking order within four weeks thereafter.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
5-poonamS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
