High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 01 KL CK 0357

Sunil Kumar P.G vs Kotak Mahindra Private Ltd And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 January 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.V. Asha, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 25716 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 2nd respondent Bank realised charges from the petitioner by presenting the cheque

several times in the very same month and realised bouncing/ dishonour charges from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.885/-.

2.

It is stated that even during moratorium period, such dishonour charges are realised by unnecessarily presenting the cheque. It is stated that a sum

of Rs.77,880/-was realised from the petitioner towards this unnecessary demand and illegal action of the respondent. It is pointed out that the

dishonour charges are realised even six times in the very same month in order to harass the petitioner. At the same time, it is stated that another

financial institution presented the cheque only once and no such charges are realised. It is pointed out that even though the cheque was bounced, the

charges are realised only once, pointing out Ext.P2.

3.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent to refund a sum of Rs.77,800/- recovered from him for 88 bounces and

another sum of Rs.8,850/-recovered during the moratorium period and for adjusting the same towards the outstanding amount in his loan account. The

action of the respondent in presenting a cheque for clearance six to eight times in a month and for realisation of the same appears prima facie

unjustified. Six instalments are still due to the respondent, petitioner claims adjustment of this amount towards the said instalments.

4.

I heard the learned Standing Counsel also.

As there is prima facie illegality on the part of the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner has to submit a representation before the

respondent pointing out his grievance and request for adjustment. On receipt of the same, the respondent shall consider the same and take a decision

on it taking note of Ext.P2 also. Petitioner would also be free to approach the statutory authorities also in the meanwhile, if so advised.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.