Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 658 (KER)

Anil Paul v. Reserve Bank of India

2026-05-20

M A Abdul Hakhim

body2026
JUDGMENT : M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J. 1. The Petitioners are husband and wife. They have filed this Writ Petition with the following prayers: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to pay compensation @ Rs.5000/- per day with effect from 01.12.2023 as per Exhibit P8 circular of the 1 st respondent to the petitioner for the period in which the documents of the petitioner has been withheld by the bank after settling the home loan as per Exhibit P1. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent to return the original documents of the property mortgaged by the petitioners for availing home loan settled as per Exhibit P1. iii) Issue a writ order or direction directing the 1 st respondent to initiate action against the 2 nd respondent bank for noncompliance of Exhibit P8 circular. iv) grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including to dispense the translation of vernacular documents/Exhibits.” 2. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are pressing only prayer No.2 as of now. 3. The short facts necessary for disposing of the Writ Petition are that the Petitioners had obtained a loan from the State Bank of Travancore for Rs.6.75 lakhs. The said loan was taken over by the Respondent No.2/Bank on 03.09.2004. As per the Loan Sanction Letter, the EMI was Rs.7,290/- and the EMI was payable till 2014. According to the Petitioners, they regularly paid the EMI @ Rs.7,290/- per month and closed the loan. But the Respondent No.2/Bank refused to return the title deed. The Petitioner No.1 approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, by filing a complaint against Respondent No.2 alleging deficiency of service. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum disposed of the complaint as per Ext.P1 Order. The following reliefs are granted by the Forum: “In the result, the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party i. to settle and close the housing loan account of the complainant by calculating interest @ 8% p.a. till the date of first communication regarding the hike in the interest rate to the complainant as per the records of the bank and which was acknowledged by the complainant in writing. ii. ii. The opposite party is directed to return the title documents to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after settling the accounts as per direction No.i above and after the payment due to the bank as per such settlement. iii. The complainant is found entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- as prayed for and the opposite party is directed to pay the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without interest and the delayed payment will entail the payment of interest at Rs.12% p.a. for the amount of compensation award. iv. The complainant is entitled to realize a costs of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation from the opposite party.” 4. The Petitioner filed E.A. No.2/2019 for recovering the compensation and costs as per Ext.P1 and S.T. No.5/2020 for prosecution under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , alleging that Respondent No.2 failed to return the documents in compliance with the Ext.P1 order. When those petitions were pending, the Bank filed a suit for realisation of amount of Rs.5,71,783.67 from the Petitioners, alleging that the said amount was due as per the loan account. The Petitioners raised the question of res judicata as a preliminary issue, and the same was rejected by the trial court. 5. The Petitioners filed CRP No.358/2019 challenging the Order rejecting the objection of res judicata, raised by the Petitioners. In the meantime, the Consumer Forum had issued summons in S.T. No.5/2020 and the Bank filed OP(C) No.421/2020 challenging the proceedings in S.T. No.5/2020. This Court disposed of the aforesaid CRP as well as the OP(C) as per Ext.P2 common order. This Court allowed the CRP No.358/2019, setting aside the impugned order therein and declaring that the suit is barred by res judicata. OP(C) No.421/2020 is disposed of by permitting the Bank to remit the compensation and cost before the Forum within one month from the date of the said order, and directing that the dispute with regard to the balance amount due from the Petitioners shall be decided by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum afresh considering the account statement and affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Thereafter, the Consumer Forum passed Ext.P3 order dismissing S.T. No.5/2020, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P2 order. Thereafter, the Consumer Forum passed Ext.P3 order dismissing S.T. No.5/2020, in compliance with the directions in Ext.P2 order. In the said order, the Consumer Forum did not consider the direction of this Court to adjudicate the dispute regarding the balance amount due from the Petitioners. As per the said order, the S.T. stands dismissed. Even though the Forum passed Ext.P4 order in I.A. No.174/2004 reviewing the final order, later the said order was withdrawn by the Consumer Forum as per Ext.P6 order, finding that no such I.A. No.174/2024 was filed by the complainant/Petitioner No.1 herein. Thereafter, E.A. No.2/2019 filed by the Petitioner No.1 was closed as withdrawn as per the order dated 26.02.2024, since the complainant endorsed on the E.A. that he may be permitted to withdraw the said E.A. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners made available the order dated 26.02.2024 before the Court which is not disputed by the Counsel for the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner No.1 had submitted Ext.P9 representation to the Bank to return the documents but the same was rejected by the Bank by Ext.P10 Notice. 6. The Bank filed counter affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition and the Petitioners filed reply affidavit answering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. 7. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Sheji P. Abraham and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Sri.P.A. Augustine. 8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that as per Ext.P12, the Petitioners calculated the amount due as per Ext.P1 order with consent of the learned Counsel for the Bank, and the same was worked out to be Rs.1,03,483/-. The Petitioners paid Rs.88,500/- on 25.09.2018. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 disputed that the said statement was prepared by the Petitioners voluntarily and without the consent of the Counsel for the Respondent Bank. 9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the loan was closed in the year 2014 and, even though favourable orders were obtained by the Petitioner No.1 from the Consumer Forum, even now Respondent No.2 has not returned the documents. The suit filed by Respondent No.2 is dismissed and there is no order in favour of the Bank to realise any amount from the Petitioners. Therefore, no purpose would be served by retaining the documents by the Respondent No.2/Bank. The suit filed by Respondent No.2 is dismissed and there is no order in favour of the Bank to realise any amount from the Petitioners. Therefore, no purpose would be served by retaining the documents by the Respondent No.2/Bank. To this contention, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Bank submitted that the Respondent No.2/Bank had filed I.A. No.9/2021 in the main proceedings namely C.C. No.505/2015, but the Forum mistakenly numbered the said petition as CMP No.9/2021 in S.T. No.5/2020 and the Forum has not disposed of the said petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners replied to this contention by stating that the S.T. is dismissed and hence all the petitions therein will also automatically be dismissed and that there is no petition pending before the Forum. 10. On going through the records and also considering the contentions of the Counsel on both sides, it is found that no proceedings are pending before the Consumer Forum regarding the execution of Ext.P1 order. S.T. No.5/2020 filed by the Petitioner No.1 is dismissed as per Ext.P3 order, even though the direction of this Court is not complied with therein. The Petitioner has not challenged the said order. E.A. No.2/2019 filed by the Petitioner No.1 was withdrawn by the Petitioner. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to direct the Respondent No.2/Bank to return the original documents of the property mortgaged by the Petitioners for availing home loan settled as per Ext.P1. The Petitioner is seeking execution of Ext.P1 order through this prayer which cannot be considered in this Writ Petition. It is true that no purpose would be served to the Bank by retaining the documents. Even then, this Court cannot direct the Bank to release the documents legally. It is for the Petitioners to revive the petitions which are numbered as S.T. No.5/2020 and E.A. No.2/2019 if it is permissible in accordance with law. If S.T. No.5/2020 is restored, the CMP No.9/2021 filed by the Bank will also be automatically restored. 11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. All the contentions of the parties are left open.