IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26494 OF 2018 PETITIONER:

M/S. FLORA NATURAL FLAVOURS AND EXTRACTS PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTS MANAGER,MR NISHAD K.S, S/O.

SOMAN.K.K,KUZHUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE,POOVATHUSSERY P.O, POOVATHUSSERY , THRISSUR-680741 BY ADVS.

SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

SRI.S.S.ARAVIND RESPONDENTS:

1 OFFICE OF BANKING OMBUDSMAN RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING (I FLOOR,),BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 2 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DHANALAXMI BANK LTD,REGIONAL OFFICE,DHANALAKSHMI BUILDING PUNKUNNAM,THRISSUR-680002

3 DHANALAXMI BANK LTD ALOOR BRANCH, GROUDN FLOOR,KAINADATHUPARAMBIL THRISSUR DISTRICT,680683, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

BY ADV SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN,SC,DHANALAKSHMI BAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 05.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the Banking Ombudsman.

2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of spices extraction and deemed export. They availed loans from the respondent bank during 2014. As per Ext.P2 sanction letter, the credit facilities were reviewed and an ad hoc facility in cash limit was allowed by the respondent bank. At the time of renewal of facilities as per Ext.P2, the petitioner revisited the rate of interest charged in the account of the petitioner. However, the third respondent, though assured to reduce the rate of interest, went back from the assurance and insisted on renewal at a higher rate of interest. While so, the petitioner received a taken over proposal from the Federal Bank with a reduced rate of interest. At the time of takeover by the Federal bank, the petitioner noticed that an amount of Rs.3,96,412/- was debited towards pre closure charges and commitment charges. Though the petitioner requested for refund of the said illegally deducted amount, the respondent bank did not care to refund the same. Therefore, the petitioner approached the first respondent with Ext.P6 complaint, to which the respondent bank submitted Ext.P7 reply before the first respondent. Pursuant to the above, Ext.P9 order was passed by the first respondent, directing the respondent bank to compute the entitled interest for the period of operation, during which there was no valid sanction. It was also directed that the difference between the said computed interest and the amount recovered as preclosure charges at the time of takeover of the limits shall be refunded to the complainant. Pursuant to Ext.P9 order, Ext.P10 communication was issued by the respondent bank stating that on computing the interest and commitment charges entitled to be levied as per Ext.P9, the computed amount is higher than the amount deducted from the petitioner’s account as preclosure and commitment charges and thus, nothing remains to be refunded. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. When this matter came up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that as per Clause 17 of Chapter I of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, the petitioner has the right of appeal before the appellate authority against Ext.P9 order passed by the Banking Ombudsman. It is further submitted that the petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy of appeal, has approached this Court with the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to approach the statutory authority by way of appeal, provided some breathing time is granted to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above submissions, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority as per Clause 17 of Chapter I of the Reserve Bank - Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021. Accordingly, the writ petition