AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopinath P, J
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging proceedings initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Securitisation Act). According to the petitioner, the decision of the respondent bank to initiate proceedings under the Securitisation Act is illegal and unsustainable as they were bound to restructure the loan going by the binding instructions of the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India.
When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to move the Banking Ombudsman in order to establish its right to the restructuring of loan. It is also submitted that the petitioner proposes to approach the bank itself for a settlement of liability.
Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the learned senior counsel appearing on the instructions of Adv. Amal George would submit that if the petitioner has a grievance that the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines had not been followed in this case, it is for the petitioner to approach the Banking Ombudsman.
Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank, this writ petition will stand disposed of directing that if the petitioner moves a petition before the Banking Ombudsman complaining of non-implementation of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the Banking Ombudsman shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent Bank, take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks from the date on which the petition is so filed by the petitioner. I make it clear that it will always be open to the petitioner to enter into a settlement with the Bank notwithstanding the above direction.