Skip to main content

Bank can't recover EMI on undisbursed loan, rules Forum

Rejecting an argument by SBI that it was not at fault in recovering monthly instalments on "disbursed" housing loan, the Dispute Redressal Forum here has asked the bank to refund the entire EMI charged unduly for 20 months from a policeman and directed it to pay him Rs 50,000 as compensation for deficient services.

In their order, issued last week Forum President M Y Mankar and members Madhuri Vishwarupe and ND Kadam directed the bank to make the payment to complainant Rajendra Sadashiv Pardesi, within the next 40 days or else pay interest on the sum at 6 per cent p.A. Till its realisation.

The new panel has adopted an innovative system by which it directs both the complainant and the respondent to file an affidavit before a specified date as regards the compliance of the Forum order which tracks the pendency in the compliance which was not happening earlier.

In his complaint, the policeman told the Forum that the bank had sanctioned him a housing loan and issued a cheque for Rs 5,61,000 on July 23, 2007 which he handed over to ACP (Police Welfare) on July 25, 2007.

After the issue of the cheque, the bank began recovering the EMI amount of Rs 7,672 from September 01, 2007 till March 2009 after which he was informed by the Police Welfare Authority that the loan amount was not received.

On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the cheque of Rs 5,61,000 handed over by him to the Police Welfare Authority, was not presented for collection till 31/3/2009 and hence, on request of the complainant a fresh cheque was issued to him in April, 2009, the Forum was informed.

Even though the loan amount was not actually disbursed to the complainant till March 2009, the recovery of the housing loan principal and interest at the rate of 10 per cent was made by the bank.

This was in breach of the loan agreement condition that interest is to be charged on the outstanding amount of the disbursed housing loan. Since the loan was not actually paid to the complainant, the recovery of principal amount and interest was not proper.

Hence the complainant filed a complaint claiming refund of principal amount, interest recovered, compensation and cost of the complaint, aggregating to Rs 2,28000.

In their order, the Forum said it was the duty of the complainant's welfare authority to deposit the said cheque for collection, which they appear to have not done.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bank-can-t-recover-emi-on-undisbursed-loan-rules-forum-115011900244_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more