J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging the demand for foreclosure charge in respect of a loan availed by the petitioner from the 1st respondent bank. According to the petitioner the demand for foreclosure charge cannot be sustained on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank would submit that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the terms of the circular relied on by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not an individual borrower and therefore he is not entitled to the benefits of the circular. It is submitted that a combined reading of Exts.R1 (B) and R1 (C) circulars of the RBI clearly indicate that the claim of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay foreclosure charge cannot be sustained.

3. An identical issue was considered by this court in W.P (C)

No.7552/2015. It was held:-

“4. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Bank and the learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. Ex