KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED Vs. R.SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dtd. 22/2/2023 made in M.P.No.1 of 2014 in W.P.No.21836 of 2012.

(2.) In the said Miscellaneous Petition, the original writ petitioner had made a prayer that the Court would be pleased to cause an inquiry under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellant herein and its officials and direct filing of complaint against them. The learned Single Judge passed an order directing the Registry to frame a complaint and file the same before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The operative portion of the order contained in paragraphs Nos.17 and 18 reads as hereunder :-

(3.) The brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of present appeal are that the original writ petitioner namely, R.Selvaraj filed W.P.No.21836 of 2012 challenging the order of the Banking Ombudsman, Chennai, dtd. 2/4/2012 in complaint No.201112006004997 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited to furnish full and final settlement of accounts in respect of the loan SA-118003. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he obtained a loan from the Bank for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 on 27/7/2006. Thereafter, he was regularly paying the monthly installments and he paid a sum of Rs.23,10,352.00 for seven months. At that time, in March 2007, he decided to pay the entire loan amount by selling his property. By the letter, dtd. 22/3/2007, the Bank confirmed that it would settle the account on payment of Rs.1,70,00,000.00 and issued a No Due Certificate. Accordingly, vide D.D.No.015980, dtd. 26/3/2007, the said amount was paid and the original title deeds were also released and the mortgage was cancelled. The letter, dtd. 11/4/2007, acknowledging the full satisfaction of the above amount, was also issued. The writ petitioner requested the furnishing of the statement of accounts. However, the same was not furnished despite repeated representations and reminders. Upon calculation, the petitioner's auditor informed him that the Bank had collected an excess sum of Rs.28,26,294.00. Therefore, after making further representation, the writ petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman. By the order, dtd. 2/4/2012, the complaint was rejected and hence the Writ Petition.