IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
Manmeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
WRIT - C NO. - 22011 OF 2023.
Decided On : 18-01-2024
JUDGMENT
Prashant Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Utkarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 and Ms. Himadari Batra, learned counsel for respondent no.5.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:-
3. The petitioner, after paying off the entire claimed amount by the Bank, approached respondent no.5 for No Dues Certificate with a request for release of the documents of the property, which was placed as security against the loan amount. The No Dues Certificate was duly issued by the Bank and the papers relating to the property, kept as security, were also returned to the petitioner. After closure of the loan account, when the petitioner checked the bank statement, he realized that the bank has illegally taken 27,00,000/- against the sanctioned loan of 9,00,000/-. As per the installment fixed by the Bank, at the time of sanction of loan if it is calculated @ 12.5 % the total amount due after paying the entire 144 EMIs would have come to 17,41,680/-. The petitioner on 8.6.2019 approached respondent n
The Banking Ombudsman must adhere to principles of natural justice, providing a fair hearing before resolving complaints, especially regarding unilateral changes in loan terms by banks.
Banks must adhere to RBI guidelines regarding interest rates and cannot charge excessive rates without borrower consent, ensuring transparency and fairness in lending practices.
Provision of Section 24A of 1986 Act mandate observance of limitation period unless sufficient cause with a reasonable explanation is available for condoning delay to be recorded with reasons by Comm....
Banks must notify customers about changes in interest rates transparently as per RBI and BCSBI guidelines.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned orders to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making, confirming that even administrative decisions require justification to uphold judicial ....
Disputed questions of fact in loan agreements cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction; such matters require civil adjudication based on evidence rather than legal interpretations alone.
Lenders must adhere to RBI guidelines regarding loan terms disclosure and communication to borrowers; changes without notice violate borrowers' rights.
Banks must adhere to the terms of sanction letters and cannot unilaterally alter interest rates without borrower consent, constituting a breach of contract.
The petitioner is entitled to recover accrued interest on FDRs, as the Banking Ombudsman misapplied legal provisions regarding res-judicata and jurisdiction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.