SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Mad) 2225

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
M. Mahendran
Versus
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Indian Overseas Bank & Others
Writ Petition No.2726 of 2001
Decided on: 09-07-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Rita Chandrasekar, Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates.

The court emphasized the importance of considering the loan terms, repayment history, and the petitioner's retirement date to determine the amount payable by the petitioner, highlighting the principle of fairness and reasonableness in loan repayment calculations.

Headnote:

Writ of Mandamus - Commercial Rate of Interest - Staff Housing Loan - [STAFF HOUSING LOAN] - [BANKING] - [Staff Housing Loan Act, Section 11] - The court considered the loan sanction order, repayment schedule, and the petitioner's voluntary retirement date to determine the amount payable by the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner had repaid the principal amount early and was only liable to pay a paltry sum as on the retirement date. The court directed the respondents to calculate the appropriate commercial rate of interest for the outstanding amount and pay the difference to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to prevent the respondents from levying commercial interest on a Staff Housing Loan and recovering overdue interest on an agricultural loan. The petitioner argued that he had repaid the principal amount early and should not be liable for the commercial rate of interest.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had repaid the principal amount early and was only liable to pay a paltry sum as on the retirement date. The court directed the respondents to calculate the appropriate commercial rate of interest for the outstanding amount and pay the difference to the petitioner.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondents were justified in demanding commercial interest for the housing loan when the principal was repaid early. 2. Whether the respondents were justified in demanding commercial rate from an earlier date than the petitioner's retirement date.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the loan sanction order, repayment schedule, and the petitioner's voluntary retirement date to determine the amount payable by the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner had repaid the principal amount early and was only liable to pay a paltry sum as on the retirement date.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to calculate the appropriate commercial rate of interest for the outstanding amount and pay the difference to the petitioner. The respondents were also directed to pay interest for the gratuity amount as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rules framed thereunder.

Judgment :-

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus for bearing the respondents from levying and recovering the commercial rate of interest for the petitioners Staff Housing Loan sanctioned in F.No.29/28, dated 27. 1980 or recovering overdue interest on his agricultural loan sanctioned in No.71/124, dated 16. 1981.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the service of the respondent bank on 2. 1975 as Shroff-cum-Godown Keeper and posted at Madurantakam Branch. On 7. 1988, he was promoted as Special Assistant and transferred to Acharapakkam Branch. In the year 1991, he was re-transferred to Madurantakam Branch and he served in the said branch upto 31. 2001, i.e till the date of his voluntary retirement.

3. The petitioner while in service, applied for a Staff Housing Loan to the bank in the year 1980 and the same was sanctioned by order of the fourth respondent dated 27. 1980. As per the sanction order, the petitioner has to repay the sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- in twenty five years through deduction in salary at the rate of Rs.235/-per month. For first 100 months, Rs.285/-per month for the next 100 months, and at the rate of Rs.235/- for the remaining period. The said housing loan was sanctioned with a simple interest at the rate of 4%. The petitioner availed the first stage of loan of Rs.20,000/- on 8. 1980 to carry out the construction work upto the basement level and availed the second stage of Rs.15,000/-on 22. 1981. The petitioner purchased construction materials like cement etc., and timber for window and door frames,

4. According to the petitioner, due to sudden rainfalls the building materials got damaged and therefore, he could not complete his house construction. Even subsequently, he could not complete the house due to illness of the petitioners wife, the death of the petitioners father-in-law. Since the construction was not further made, he has not availed the third stage loan of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the petitioner availed only a sum of Rs.35,000/- as loan from the respondent bank. From February, 1982 onwards the repayment of instalments began. The petitioner submitted a representation to reduce the rate of installment due to his family difficulties and consequently, the Central Office reduced the monthly payment from Rs.235/- to Rs.165/-per month, which the petitioner paid. The petitioner also obtained agricultural loan from the respondents for a sum of Rs.31,900/- to irrigate the petitioners agricultural lands.

5. The petitioner after his voluntary retirement apprehended that the respondent bank will levy commercial rate of interest from the date of sanction of the loan and therefore filed the above writ petition.

6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit by stating that as per condition No.11, of accepting voluntary retirement, the petitioner has to be relieved on 31. 2001 and the branch should sent copies of the relieving letter to Settlement Section, Pension Cell, Regional Office, Kancheepuram and subject to closure of Staff Housing Loan with commercial rate of interest and recovery of crop loan with overdue interest, the petitioner will get the terminal benefits. The petitioner accepted the said condition by accepting the copy on 21. 2001 and he was relieved on 31. 2001. The petitioner having agreed, he is not entitled to challenge the commercial rate.

7. Additional counter affidavit was also filed by the respondents by stating that the petitioner availed a sum of Rs.35,000/-as housing loan in two stages. The repayment was re-scheduled at the rate of Rs.165/-per month from his salary from February, 1982 onwards. The monthly amount deducted from the petitioners salary was credited towards principal, and interest accrued at the concessional rate was calculated on the principal outstanding every month on simple interest separately. Interest was not debited to the loan account. The simple interest accrued will be recovered without interest on t






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top