C.J. ANTO Vs. INDUSIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns Ext.P6 order passed by the second respondent, the Banking Ombudsman under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 (the Scheme), on Ext.P5 complaint.

(2.) The case set out by the petitioner in Ext.P5 complaint was that he was enjoying a cash credit facility from the first respondent Bank (the Bank) from the year 2012; that the interest agreed to be paid by the petitioner for the said facility was 13.25% per annum and that interest was accordingly being charged in the account only at that rate till June 2018. It was also the case of the petitioner in Ext.P5 complaint that the Bank has unilaterally, and without notice to the petitioner, varied the rate of interest to be charged in the account of the petitioner to 15.65% per annum thereafter and that the Bank has no authority to do so. In terms of Ext.P6 order, the second respondent has rejected Ext.P5 complaint without issuing notice to the Bank, stating that the petitioner has not produced documents to show that the agreed rate of interest was 13.25%.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the first respondent.