Venkata Ramanaiah P vs Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (Dhfl) on 12 June, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Venkata Ramanaiah P vs Dewan Housing Finance Ltd (Dhfl) on 12 June, 2019

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                         1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

                      BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

   WRIT PETITION NO.14104 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

Venkata Ramanaiah.P,
S/o.Late Subbaiah,
Aged 43 years,
No.52, 3rd Main, 6th Cross,
K.R.Puram, Near Govt. College,
Bengaluru-36.                          ... Petitioner

(By Sri.Radhakrishna.A, Adv.,)

AND:

Dewan Housing Finance Ltd. (DHFL),
Represented by Authorised Officer,
Having its office at No.1347/36,
2nd Floor, Ragigudda Circle,
South End Main Road,
Jayanagar 9th Block,
Bengaluru-69.                      ... Respondent

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to
direct the respondent to forthwith release the
balance amount of Rs.10,19,000/- plus the
insurance amount of Rs.3,70,869/- to complete the
incomplete construction, failing which allow the
                             2


petitioner not to pay the EMI till the respondent pay
the balance amount and etc.,

     This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-

                        ORDER

Sri.Radhakrishna.A, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.

In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent-Bank to forthwith release the balance amount of Rs.10,19,000/- along with insurance amount of Rs.3,70,869/- to complete the incomplete construction.

2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the respondent-Bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.64,29,519/-, however, an amount of 3 Rs.10,19,000/- and an insurance amount of Rs.3,70,869/- has not been released in favour of the petitioner till today and therefore, a suitable direction be issued to the respondent-Bank to release the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioner.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In case the respondent-Bank has sanctioned an amount of Rs.64,29,519/- in favour of the petitioner and has not disbursed full amount to him, the same amounts to deficiency in service and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Banking Ombudsman by making a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman.

4. In view of the availability of alternate efficacious remedy, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case the petitioner 4 files a complaint against the respondent-Bank before the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the complaint to be preferred by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period three months from the date of receipt of such complaint.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

        `                                     JUDGE


dn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court