Patna High Court
Kumari Madhu Lata vs The Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5183 of 2016
======================================================
Kumari Madhu Lata wife of Late Dinesh Kumar Resident of Kishori Niketan,
Jai Prakash Nagar, Post- G.P.O., P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Finance Secretary, Govt. of India, New
Delhi, Delhi.
2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing
Centre RACPC, 1st Floor
3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central
Processing Centre RACPC,
4. The General Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Kapas Bhawan, Plot
No.- 3A, Sector-10, CBD Belapu
5. The Zonal Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. G.V. Mall, Boring Road
Crossing, Patna- 800001
6. The Banking Ombudsman, Bihar and Jharkhand, Reserve Bank of India
Building, South Gandhi Maidan, Pa
7. The Assistant Manager, Banking Ombudsman, Bihar and Jharkhand,
Reserve Bank of India Building, Sout
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nandlal Kumar Singh, Adv.
: Ms.Madhuri Lata, Adv.
: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
: Mr. Ajeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amrendra Nath Verma, Sr. Panel Counsel
: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, CGC
: Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv.
: Mr. Ambarish Bhardwaj, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-07-2024
1. The Writ petition has been filed for issuance of
appropriate Writ or direction(s) to the respondent authorities/Bank
authorities for quashing the part of Clause (ix) of the Agreement
dated 23.03.2010 of the 3rd respondent and for quashing the Letter
No. 2380 dated 05.01.2016 issued by the 7th respondent and further
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
2/7
direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to recover 50% of the
term loan along with interest from SBI Life Insurance (Respondent
No. 4) which was to be deposited by the husband of the petitioner
and to take appropriate action against the erring Officers in
accordance to law.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the husband of the
petitioner namely Dinesh Kumar along with his elder brother
namely Rameshwar Lal filed an application jointly for home loan
of Rs. 15 lakhs on 10.02.2010 before the Retail Asset Central
Processing Centre of SBI, Patna, on the basis of pay slip and
documents of land. Out of 15 lakhs an amount of Rs. 12,59,000/-
term loan was sanctioned on 23.03.2010. The authority of the State
Bank of India insured the loan amount from SBI Life Insurance
Company Ltd. as per the arrangement Letter dated 23.03.2010
(Annexure-1). The repayment by way of installment is Rs.
15,000/- per month. As it is a joint loan 50% loan amount
installment i.e. Rs. 7,500/- out of total installment of Rs. 15,000/-
was to be paid by the husband of the petitioner and the balance of
the installment of Rs. 7500/- was to be paid by the elder brother of
the petitioner's husband namely Rameshwar Lal which is apparent
from the statement of the Bank from 01.04.2015 to 21.10.2015 of
the Home Loan Account No. 31108462181 (Annexure - 3). Out of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
3/7
the two borrowers, one borrower namely Dinesh Kumar who is the
husband of the petitioner died on 27.06.2015 at All India Institute
of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The petitioner filed an
application before the authority concerned and Banking
Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Patna for taking an action to
exempt 50% of the loan amount share along with the interest of the
husband of the petitioner and to recover the same from SBI Life
Insurance Company Ltd. Without considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the claim of the petitioner was rejected
vide Letter No. 2380 dated 05.01.2016 (Annexure-1/A). It is urged
by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that out of two
borrowers, one borrower namely Dinesh Kumar the husband of the
petitioner, died on 27.06.2015. In view of the death of the
petitioner's husband, the SBI Life Insurance is liable to pay loan,
as it is covered by insurance. The condition imposed under Clause
(ix) of the Agreement Letter is not sustainable in the eye of law
and therefore, prayed to quash the Clause of the agreement
covered under the Annexure - 1 and further prayed to set aside the
orders of the Ombudsman, in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
4/7
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
5. On perusal of the entire material, it is evident that the
State Bank of India has issued Home Loan and Term Loan to the
joint borrowers i.e. to the husband of the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh
Kumar, and to his elder brother Rameshwar Lal.
6. Clause (ix) of Annexure-1 reads as follows:-
Home Loan Group Insurance:- The
advance will be covered by SBI life Dhanaraksha Plus
LPPT Scheme for Single Elder Applicant and the
premium with service tax of 10.30% will be 58217/-. A
Health Questionaire would need to be submitted for
the elder applicant. Medical examination, if required,
shall be intimated by SBI Life.
7. On perusal of the said Clause, it is evident that the
husband of the petitioner and the elder brother of the husband of
the petitioner has agreed to the contents of the agreement and
signed the agreement. Clause (ix) of the Agreement specifically
disclose that the Life Insurance Dhanaraksha Scheme would be
applicable for Single Elder Applicant. Hence, it can be construed
that it is the beneficiary for Rameshwar Lal who is the elder
brother of Dinesh Kumar but not for Dinesh Kumar.
8. During the pendency of the Writ application, I.A. No.
3013 of 2017 has been filed for amending the prayer to the effect
i.e. "For direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
5/7
5,12,500.00/- alongwith interest which has been deposited by the
petitioner on 02.03.2017 with a condition, subject to the result of
the writ application". The interlocutory application also disclose
that the State Bank of India has issued notice No.
AGM/RACPC/PAT/1740 dated 02.02.2017 under Section 13(2) of
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 wherein the petitioner
was directed to pay the amount along with interest.
9. Hence, it can be construed that the lis between the
parties is purely a civil dispute between the bank and the
applicants. It is relevant to mention the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. Uco
Bank and others reported in 2024 INSC 297 wherein the
lordships have held:
" 21. Recently, in the case of Celir LLP
(supra), after surveying various judgments of this Court,
the Court observed thus:
"101. More than a decade back,
this Court had expressed serious concern
despite its repeated pronouncements in regard
to the High Courts ignoring the availability of
statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and
the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even
after, the decision of this Court in Satyawati
Tondon [United Bank of India v. Satyawati
Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 : (2010) 3 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
6/7
(Civ) 260], it appears that the High Courts
have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 ignoring the statutory
remedies under the RDBFI Act and the
SARFAESI Act."
22. It can thus be seen that it is more than a
settled legal position of law that in such matters, the High
Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution particularly when an alternative statutory
remedy is available.
30. It has however been clarified that the High
Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available
to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the
action complained of has been taken itself contains a
mechanism for redressal of grievance."
10. The above judgment of the Supreme Court writ
petition squarely applies to the present case and Writ petition is
not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as
an effective alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
Moreover, the present case does not fall under any of the
exception carved out by the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. Vs. Chhabil Dass
Agarwal reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603. Furthermore, the order
of the Ombudsman under Annexure 1/A is also not violative of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner in any manner. The husband
of the petitioner signed the Agreement, being aware of Clause (ix)
of the said agreement. Therefore, there is no illegality or
Patna High Court CWJC No.5183 of 2016 dt.19-07-2024
7/7
irregularity in Clause (ix) of the bank agreement dated
23.03.2010.
11. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
12. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order before the appropriate Forum within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
13. Further, the appropriate Forum from the date of application shall dispose of the matter within six weeks as the matter pertains to the year 2015.
14. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) amitkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 26.07.2024 Transmission Date N/A