Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Janak Shantilal Patel & vs M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited & on 16 February, 2016

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

                    C/SCA/2375/2016                                               ORDER




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2375 of 2016

         ==========================================================
                        JANAK SHANTILAL PATEL & 1....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
                  M/S ADITYA BIRLA FINANCE LIMITED & 1....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR AB MUNSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
         ==========================================================

              CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA


                                        Date : 16/02/2016


                                         ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel Mr. Ashok L. Shah assisted by learned advocate Mr. A. B. Munshi for the petitioners.

2. The petition is filed praying for a direction against respondent No.1, which is Non Baking Financial Company, to refund Rs. 1,12,55,885/- with interest which was the amount collected by respondent No.1 bank towards prepayment charges of loan repaid by the petitioner. The submission of the petitioners is that the loan, in question, was given to the petitioners on individual basis, and the Circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 14th July, 2014, provided that the Non Baking Financial Companies shall not charge foreclosure charges/pre- payment penalties on all floating rate term loans sanctioned to individual borrower. It was pointed out from correspondence between respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2-Reserve Bank of India that a stand was taken by respondent No.1 that loan was advanced to a partnership firm and therefore consequential benefit of scheme of refund would not be Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Wed Feb 17 03:56:14 IST 2016 C/SCA/2375/2016 ORDER available.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits as well as the prayers of refund and grantability thereof in the writ jurisdiction, since a factual assertion is made that the loan was floating rate term loan availed by the petitioners as an individual, which would qualify the benefit of no charges towards its repayment, Notice returnable on 08.03.2016.

Direct service is permitted.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) cmjoshi Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Wed Feb 17 03:56:14 IST 2016