Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar Goyal vs Dhan Laxmi Bank & Another on 27 September, 2012
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.19342 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.19342 of 2012
Date of decision:27.09.2012
Anil Kumar Goyal .....Petitioner
Versus
Dhan Laxmi Bank & another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL &
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms.Hemlata Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
*****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to reshuffle the repayment schedule and to refund the wrongly charged interest amount.
2. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that it had applied for loan to the tune of `2.70 crores which was sanctioned vide letter dated 28.01.2011 against the property of the petitioner bearing SCO No.38, Sector 11, Panchkula which was earlier mortgaged with ICICI Bank, Panchkula. The loan with ICICI Bank, Panchkula was repaid by the petitioner on 07.02.2011 by foreclosing it. The mortgage deed of the property of the petitioner was released on 25.02.2011 by the ICICI Bank and the same had been submitted to respondent No.2, Dhan Laxmi Bank (Retail Assets Operations). The loan was disbursed for the first time on 25.02.2011 and secondly on 14.03.2011 through different cheques bearing back date, i.e., 31.01.2011 for `1,57,45,157/- and `80,00,000/- and cheque dated 04.03.2011 for `30,37,000/-. Accordingly, it was pleaded that only sum of `1,57,45,157/- had been disbursed on 25.02.2011 and the rest of the amount CWP No.19342 of 2012 2 was disbursed on 14.03.2011 but interest was charged from 31.01.2011 to 24.02.2011, i.e., for 24 days for `1,57,45,157/- and from 31.01.2011 to 13.03.2011 for `80,00,000/- and from 31.01.2011 to 13.03.2011 for `30,37,000/-. The respondents had debited the account of the petitioner with `43,364/- as interest without disbursing a single penny to the petitioner and have changed the date of EMI from 18th of every month to 5th of every month. The petitioner had represented the matter with the respondents through e-mails and requested to refund the interest which was illegally charged and a legal notice was also given but the respondents have, through their reply, refused to accept the request of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has thus argued that the amount was not disbursed but interest was charged for the said period.
3. Respondents, in their reply to the notices issued by the petitioner (Annexure P-8), have stated that the payment of `10,37,000/- vide cheque No.702971 dated 28.01.2011 was made by respondent No.2, Dhan Laxmi Bank (Retail Assets Operations) towards foreclosure of the earlier loan with ICICI Bank. It has been further mentioned that the loan had been disbursed on 31.01.2011 but since the earlier lien was marked in favour of ICICI Bank, so their lien marking could only be possible after obtaining no objection certificate from ICICI. The interest of `43,364/- was charged for the broken period from 28.01.2011 to 05.02.2011 and that the cycle of EMI could be changed from 05th to 15th of every month but not 18th of every month as there was only two EMI cycles and the petitioner had been duly informed about it vide sanction letter dated 28.01.2011.
4. The questions which are raised in the petition are matter of a contract between the parties and the dispute arising out of the said contract CWP No.19342 of 2012 3 cannot be settled in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The parties are bound by the terms of the contract which had been entered into and the Writ Court would not exercise its jurisdiction for settling the said dispute as there is no legal statutory right which the petitioner is seeking. Even otherwise, respondent No.2, Dhan Laxmi Bank (Retail Assets Operations) is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India against whom a writ under Articles 226/227 can be issued. The petitioner himself, in his legal notice, has also asked for the return of the interest failing which, he would make complaint to the Bank Ombudsman and the Consumer Court.
5. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available to him in accordance with law.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
27.09.2012 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
sailesh JUDGE