THOMAS WILFRED Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the proprietor of a commercial establishment and has filed this Original Petition praying for a Writ of mandamus for enforcement of an award passed by the Banking Ombudsman, second respondent herein as against the 4th respondent - Union Bank of India. It is stated that the petitioner was having an account in the Bank from 1992 onwards. He is a Non Resident Indian and his accounts were being operated by an authorised signatory at Kochi. On the facts that have been pleaded and the question to be decided, it may not however be necessary for me to go into the intricate details of the transactions.

(2.) The petitioner complains that irregular and unethical procedure practised by the Bank resulted in loss to him by being forced to pay usurious and exorbitant rate of interest charged on money lent. The allegation is that it is in violation of the norms prescribed by the Reserve Bank in respect of Foreign Currency Non Resident Loan Account (FCNR) maintained by him. It is averred that without complying with the preliminary obligation of an intimation to the petitioner, the 4th respondent had unilaterally closed the deposits in its convenience and the entire outstanding balance in all the accounts which included the overdraft accounts secured by deposit of title deeds were liquidated. There was no response to the notice that had been issued showing the arbitrariness in the matter and the petitioner was constrained to approach the Banking Ombudsman, Trivandrum. The records show that in the course of enquiry made by the Banking Ombudsman, so as to arrive at an amicable resolution in the case, he had presented his recommendation on 4.9.1999, as envisaged under Clause.19 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. But, in the meanwhile, though the petitioner had communicated his willingness and acceptance of the recommendation, negotiations had been held at the instance of the bank, but contrary to expectations the matter was not finally settled. As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that during the negotiations, the bank had offered to pay a sum of Rs. 48,52,213/- towards the excess interest charged on the secured over draft (FCNR) Account. Though he had agreed to the figure as projected, nevertheless maintained that the amount should carry interest at NRI rates, as well. It is stated that despite this stand, payment by draft of an amount of Rs. 48,52,213/- had been issued. But shortly thereafter, it was called back since the Bank wanted a full and final settlement.

(3.) Finding that there was no response to the recommendation from the side of the Bank, the Banking Ombudsman has passed its award on 26.10.1999. The petitioner had accepted the award and communicated his willingness to the Banking Ombudsman as well as the Bank. This normally would have been an end of the dispute, going by the terms of the Scheme. But as no payments were forthcoming within the stipulated period, the petitioner had taken up the matter further with the Reserve Bank of India. Petitioners application is kept in hibernation, it is alleged. This Original Petition had been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to force the Bank to comply with the award and for consequential reliefs. But due to intervening incidents, he submits that not much head - way has been possible to be made.