SBI moves NCDRC to transfer case by Madras High Court judge over home loan default

Sekar Reporter

3 weeks ago

Logo
Subscribe
News
Columns
Interviews
Law Firms
Apprentice Lawyer
Legal Jobs
हिंदी
ಕನ್ನಡ
Litigation News
SBI moves NCDRC to transfer case by Madras High Court judge over home loan default
SBI claims that Justice Banu defaulted on repaying a home loan that she availed in 2010, when she was an advocate, for the construction of a house in Madurai.
Justice Nisha Banu
Justice Nisha Banu
Ayesha Arvind
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 2:48 pm
3 min read
State Bank of India has approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking the transfer of a consumer complaint filed by Madras High Court judge, Justice Nisha Banu over a dispute arising from an overdue home loan repayment.

The Bank has sought a transfer of the case to a forum outside Tamil Nadu since Justice Banu is sitting High Court judge, as first reported by the Indian Express.

Records available on the NCDRC website reveal that the Bank filed a transfer petition before the coram of Justice AP Sahi and member Inderjit Singh.

The original complaint was filed by Justice Banu through her son and lawyer Dayakant Kevin Rai against New India Assurance Company and SBI before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Madurai.

SBI’s lead counsel, Advocate Jitendra Kumar, said that since Madurai district came under the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, the Bank felt it might not get a fair hearing before the District Commission.

SBI has also filed an application seeking an interim stay on the proceedings before the District Commission until its transfer petition is heard finally. On August 9, the last date of hearing in the matter, the District Commission was informed of the transfer petition and the hearing on the original complaint was accordingly adjourned to October 10.

The NCDRC, meanwhile, is scheduled to hear SBI’s transfer petition on September 23.

The dispute between Justice Banu and SBI pertains to a home loan the judge had availed in 2010 for constructing a two-storey house on two adjoining plots she owns in Madurai.

At the time, Justice Banu was an advocate practicing before the Madras High Court. She availed a house construction loan and mortgaged the property of ₹29.20 lakh with a 20-year repayment period, SBI said. She also mortgaged another property she owns in Madurai to secure the loan. The loan was insured by the New India Assurance Company.

The judge paid her EMIs on such loan for the first two-and-a-half years. However, in 2012, Justice Banu got into a dispute with the private contractor over the alleged use of sub-standard construction material for the house.

In 2013, she asked SBI to stop further disbursement of the loan and stopped paying the EMIs on her loan. By this time, SBI had already disbursed ₹22 lakh of the loan amount.

The EMIs due in December 2018, and January and February 2019 were not paid. As per the Bank, the outstanding amount that remains unpaid by Justice Banu comes to around ₹40 lakh.

The judge then filed a consumer complaint against the contractor, one John Ignatius, before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, claiming he had used sub-standard construction material and seeking compensation. The proceedings resulted in the demolition of whatever portion of such house that had already been constructed. In 2015, following the State Commission’s order, Justice Banu was paid a compensation of over ₹20 lakh with12 per cent interest.

In 2016, Justice Banu was elevated as a judge of the Madras High Court.

Meanwhile, she approached the NCDRC in appeal, and was awarded another ₹25 lakh as compensation on July 10, 2019.

Since Justice Banu is a sitting judge of the High Court, the Bank says it has been unbale to seize the mortgaged property and recover the loan default amount.

The Bank says it “sent” the judge “repeated reminders to pay the outstanding amount.” It also reminded her that she had secured “hefty compensation” against the demolition of her partly constructed house and that she was liable to pay her home loan dues.

Justice Banu asked SBI to instead settle the outstanding amount by making a claim before the insurance company.

The insurance company, however, said that the insurance cover availed by Justice Banu pertains to its the ‘Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy’ and does not cover demolition of the partially constructed house.

in 2021, the loan was classified by SBI as a non-performing asset (NPA) as per Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines.

In June this year, Justice Banu through her son filed a complaint before the District Commission, Madurai against the General Manager of the New India Assurance Company through which she had secured insurance for the house that was being constructed, the SBI, and one more respondent party.

Justice Banu has asked in her complaint that she paid a sum of ₹46 lakh with interest, the insured amount, and ₹1 crore as compensation for mental agony. She has also sought a refund of all the money already paid towards previous EMIs on the housing loan.

The judge has claimed that New India Assurance and SBI colluded to not pay her the insurance amount despite the house having been demolished.

Justice Banu and her counsel P Gokulnath of Gandhi Associates, who represents her before the District Commission in Madurai, could not be reached for comment.

Madras High CourtState Bank of IndiaNCDRCJustice Nisha Banu

News
Why Jammu and Kashmir High Court granted anticipatory bail to IAF Wing Commander in rape case
The Wing Commander was booked by the Budgam Police Station in Central Kashmir on a woman officer’s complaint that the Wing Commander had sexually assaulted her at the Srinagar Air Force Station.
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Bar & Bench
Bar & Bench
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 8:39 pm
2 min read
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to a Wing Commander of the Indian Air Force (IAF) in a rape case.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal permitted the investigation to continue but directed that the chargesheet in the rape case shall not be filed without the Court’s permission.

The Wing Commander was booked on September 8 by the Budgam Police Station in Central Kashmir on a woman officer’s complaint that he had sexually assaulted her at the Srinagar Air Force Station.

The Court granted relief to the Wing Commander, saying the officer’s reputation and career would be jeopardised in case of his arrest.

“The prima facie case for indulgence is made out at this stage as the petitioner who is serving as Wing Commander in the Air Force Station, Srinagar and in case of his arrest his reputation as well as the service career shall be jeopardized,” the Court said in the order.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Srinagar High Court Wing
Justice Rajnesh Oswal, Srinagar High Court Wing
Accordingly, it granted the Wing Commander bail on following grounds,

He shall furnish two solvent sureties for an amount of Rs. 50,000/ each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and personal bond of like amount.

He shall not leave the Union Territory of J and K without the permission of his Commanding Officer.

He will not contact any of the prosecution witnesses either physically or through any other mode.

He shall appear before the I.O w.e.f. 14.09.2024 to 16.09.2024 from 10 A.M till 2 P.M and thereafter as and when required.

The Court also directed the State to file a status report by or before the next date of hearing on October 11.

According to a report carried by the Indian Express, the woman officer has alleged that she was forced to perform a sexual act on him after the New Year’s Party held at the Officers’ Mess on December 31, 2023.

She further alleged that the sexual assault took place in a room at around 2 am on January 1 after the Wing Commander asked her to come to a room to receive a New Year gift, as per the news report.

The officer has also accused senior IAF officers of not taking her complaint seriously.

[Read Order]

Attachment
PDF
P vs Union Territory of J&K and Anr.pdf
Preview
Anticipatory BailJammu and Kashmir High CourtIndian Air ForceIndian Air Force OfficerHigh Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
News
Tourist buses not like stage carriages, cannot pick up other passengers en route: Kerala High Court
The Court ruled that tourist buses with All India Tourist Permit (AITP) cannot function as stage carriages, meaning they cannot pick up or drop off passengers en route who are not part of the original contract.
Bus
Bus
Praisy Thomas
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 7:25 pm
3 min read
The Kerala High Court recently held that tourist buses operate under a contract with specific passengers and should not offer services to the general public like stage carriages [Sarath G Nair v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases].

Tourist buses are in the nature of contract carriages and not stage carriages which are vehicles that carry six or more passengers for hire or reward, which differs based on distance travelled), the Court found.

Therefore, it cannot pick up and drop off passengers other than those whom the tourist buses have contracted with at the start of the journey, the Court said.

“A tourist vehicle operator does not have a right to stop the vehicle to pick up or drop off passengers not included in the contract, enroute a journey. In other words, a tourist vehicle cannot run its service like a stage carriage,” the September 10 ruling stated.

Justice N Nagaresh further emphasized that under the All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules of 2023 (2023 Rules), tourist buses must prepare and carry a list of passengers at the start of every journey. This list must include details such as pick-up and drop-off points, either in print or electronic form.

The buses are bound by this contract and cannot offer services similar to stage carriages, which operate by picking up and dropping off passengers during the journey, the Court said.

“A tourist vehicle operator cannot enter into multiple contracts with more than one person or Group of persons. The persons travelling should not only have the intention of travelling to the same destination but should also have the common purpose of travelling as well,” the Court added.

Justice N Nagaresh
Justice N Nagaresh
The Court was dealing with multiple writ petitions, primarily filed by tourist vehicle operators who had been penalized for operating their buses like stage carriages in violation of a circular issued by the State government on June 6, 2023.

Other petitions included those by stage carriage operators and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), who sought action against tourist buses that were encroaching on routes meant for stage carriages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act).

The tourist vehicle operators argued that their buses, covered by AITP, were not bound by the restrictions that applied to contract carriages.

They contended that for passenger convenience, they allowed boarding at specific points and disembarking at designated stops. However, this flexibility did not mean they operated like stage carriages, they said.

The KSRTC and other stage carriage operators argued that Rules 6(2), 10(1), and 13(1) of the 2023 Rules violated the MV Act. They claimed that these rules permitted tourist buses to function as stage carriages.

This allowed tourist buses to unlawfully compete against stage carriers by offering regular services along fixed routes, which negatively impacted their revenue as well as the KSRTC’s, it was contended.

The Court analysed Sections 2(7) and 2(40) of the MV Act, according to which a contract carriage is a vehicle hired under a specific contract to transport passengers from one point to another or on a time basis, without picking up or dropping off other passengers along the way.

In contrast, a stage carriage operates on fixed routes allowing passengers to board and alight at various points by paying individual fares for the distances they travel.

The Court emphasized that the intent of the 2023 Rules was to regulate tourist buses and not to permit them to operate like public transport vehicles such as stage carriages.

It further explained that AITP vehicles must adhere to their permit conditions and cannot pick up or drop off passengers en route unless such passengers were included in the original contract.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the plea to set aside the June 6, 2023 State circular and concluded that the circular was valid and lawful.

The Court also upheld the actions of the Motor Vehicles Department in penalizing tourist vehicles for violating their permit conditions.

[Read Judgment]

Attachment
PDF
Sarath G Nair v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases.pdf
Preview
Kerala High CourtJustice N NagareshKSRTCAll India Tourist Permit

News
Trans persons can’t invoke law penalising sex on false promise of marriage: Himachal Pradesh High Court
It, therefore, granted bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relationship with a transgender person on the false promise of marriage.
Section 69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Section 69 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Bar & Bench
Bar & Bench
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 6:47 pm
3 min read
Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which penalises sex on false promise of marriage can be invoked only if the complainant is a woman and not a transgender person, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held [Bhupesh Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh].

It, therefore, granted bail to a man accused of establishing sexual relationship with a transgender person on the false promise of marriage.

The accused was booked under Section 69 (sexual intercourse with woman by employing deceitful means, etc) of BNS and Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

Justice Sandeep Sharma observed that since for the first time ‘transgender’ has been explained in the definition of ‘gender’, transgender persons cannot claim themselves to be a male or female as they have been given separate identity.

The Court also examined Section 69 of the BNS and concluded that this provision of law can only be invoked if the complainant is a woman.

“In aforesaid provision of law, it has been categorically provided that whoever by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to ten years and shall also be also liable to pay fine.”

Justice Sandeep Sharma
Justice Sandeep Sharma
In the present case, the Court from the statements of the victim found that she had admitted to be a transgender. Thus, it found merit in the contention of the accused’s counsel that no case under Section 69 was made out against him.

“Since under BNS, “woman” and “transgender” have been given different identity and have been defined independently, under Section 2 coupled with the fact that physical relationship inter-se victim-prosecutrix and bail petitioner, if any, was developed prior to surgery of victim-prosecutrix, whereby she allegedly got her sex changed, there appears to be force in the claim of the bail petitioner that he could not have been booked under Section 69 of the BNS”.

However, the Court also said he was required to be dealt with under Section 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 which provides for six months to two years imprisonment of those who physically or sexually abuse transgender persons.

The man was booked on July 18 on the complaint that during the COVID-19 lockdown, the victim had come in contact with him through Facebook and since then, they had been in contact with each other.

The transgender person alleged that though her gender was known to the man, he insisted on marrying her. She also alleged that parents of the man had expressed their inability to solemnize their marriage but asked her to get sex changed.

She alleged that despite getting the sex changed, the accused refused to marry her and has gone ahead to fix his marriage with some other person.

The Court last month granted interim bail to the accused. Besides the argument that he could not have been booked under Section 69 of the BNS, his counsel also said that the claim regarding sex change was yet to be established as the victim had refused to get herself medically examined.

Justice Sharma said the accused had already joined the investigation and nothing remains to be recovered from him.

While agreeing that the accused could not have been booked under Section 69 of the BNS, the Court also noticed that there was nothing on record to suggest that he had made an attempt to develop physical relationship with the victim after the alleged surgery.

“Though case at hand shall be decided by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but keeping in view the aforesaid glaring aspect of the matter, there appears to be no justification for this court to send the bail petitioner in judicial custody, especially when nothing remains to be recovered from him,” the Court said.

The Court thus granted bail to the accused.

Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar and advocate Anubhav Chopra represented the accused.

Additional Advocates General Rajan Kahol, Vishal Panwar and BC Verma with Deputy Advocates General Ravi Chauhan represented the State.

Legal Aid Counsel Bhawna Sharma represented the complainant.

[Read Order]

Attachment
PDF
Bhupesh Thakur vs State of Himachal Pradesh.pdf
Preview
Himachal Pradesh High CourtJustice Sandeep SharmaTransgender Persons ActRights of Transgender Personsfalse promise of marriageLGBTQIA+Section 69 of Bharathiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
News
Allahabad High Court orders probe into Arya Samaj institutions performing illegal marriages
The Court had earlier observed that fake marriage certificates are issued by various organisations and societies so that the couples can approach courts seeking police protection.
Allahabad High Court, Marriage
Allahabad High Court, Marriage
Bar & Bench
Bar & Bench
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 6:44 pm
3 min read
The Allahabad High Court recently directed the Commissioners of Police of Gautam Budh Nagar (Noida) and Ghaziabad to conduct a thorough and discreet inquiry into the functioning of Arya Samaj Mandirs and related societies/ trusts involved in solemnization of marriage [Shanidev And Another vs State of UP And 7 Others].

Justice Vinod Diwakar passed the order after police verification in a number of cases revealed that marriages were being solemnised by them in contravention of the provisions of Child Marriage Restraint Act and Hindu Marriage Act.

The documents including Aadhaar cards filed with the petitions moved by such couples were also found forged and even the undertaking furnished on oath on notarized affidavits were found to be fake.

Justice Vinod Diwakar
Justice Vinod Diwakar
The Court also noted that the Marriage Registration Officer registered the marriage on the basis of the fake and invalid marriage certificate without verification.

“In essence, such marriages lead to human trafficking, sexual exploitation, and forced labor. Children endure emotional and psychological trauma caused by social instability, exploitation, coercion, manipulation, and the disruption of their education. Additionally, these issues place a significant burden on the courts. Therefore, a robust system for document verification and ensuring the accountability of trusts and societies needs to be developed,” said the Court.

Thus, the Court directed the police to probe following aspects,

i) name of such trust/society performing marriage within the territorial jurisdiction of district Gautam Budh Nagar and Ghaziabad;

(ii) the inquiry shall include the profiling (social, financial and otherwise also the criminal antecedents, if any) of the President, Secretary and Purohit- who performs marriage- of the trust/society, and any other person involved directly or indirectly;

(iii) the resources including links and contacts through which the trusts management (beneficiary of the activities) approaches the eloped boys and girls for solemnization of their marriage;

(iv) details of the persons, who “help the eloped couples” to create false and fabricated documents pertaining to the age, residential address, bogus affidavits and fake complaints to the police and provide shelter and protection against law;

(v) the details of financial transaction of the trust/society;

(vi) details of fee charged by the members of the trust/society and Purohit in the name of Dakshina for solemnization of marriages;

(vii) any other discreet information which may facilitate the Court to reach to the core and to understand as to how the “entire vicious cycle” works from solemnization of marriage till filing of protection petitions in Court on the basis of forged documents.

Justice Diwakar had earlier flagged the fact that fake marriage certificates were being issued by various organisations and societies so that the couples can approach courts seeking police protection.

“This Court is flooded with frivolous petitions based on forged documents. It’s crucial that the office of Inspector General, Registration engages in meaningful dialogue with the offices of all stakeholders who issue Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Birth Certificate, Educational Board, marriage certificates issued by societies/trusts etc., which find the inscribed date of birth so that the Marriage Registration Office could verify the documents before issuing marriage certificate,” the Court had said.

On September 3, the Court observed that the matter did not appear to be in the priority list of the office of Inspector General Registration. It thus directed the Principal Secretary (Stamp & Registration), Lucknow to himself supervise the matter and ensure compliance with court orders.

Advocate Ranjeet Kumar Yadav represented the petitioners.

Additional Chief Standing Counsel Ashwani Kumar Tripathi represented the State.

[Read Order]

Attachment
PDF
Shanidev And Another vs State of UP and 7 Others.pdf
Preview
Allahabad High CourtMarriage RegistrationArya Samaj marriage
News
Delhi court acquits ten men in Delhi riots case
The Karkardooma Court said that allegations against accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Delhi Police, Karkardooma Court
Delhi Police, Karkardooma Court
Prashant Jha
Published on:
13 Sep 2024, 5:49 pm
2 min read
A Delhi court recently acquitted 10 accused in a case related to the North-east Delhi riots of 2020.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pulastya Pramachala of Karkardooma Courts said that allegations against the accused were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

“In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I find that charges levelled against all the accused persons in this case are not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Mohd. Shahnawaz @ Shanu, Mohd. Shoaib @ Chhutwa, Shahrukh, Rashid @ Raja, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvej, Md. Faisal, Rashid @ Monu and Mohd Tahir, are given benefit of doubt and they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in this case,” the Court ordered on September 11.

The allegation was that the accused had entered a house in the Gokulpuri area of Delhi during the riots and set fire to the property. It was also alleged that the rioters stole gold and silver jewellery from the house along with ₹2 lakh in cash.

After considering the case, the Court ruled that an unlawful assembly had attacked the property and indulged in a riotous act but there were certain witnesses whose genuineness was under doubt.

The Court said that while the probe could have been delayed due to the riots and COVID-19, that cannot be an excuse when it came to the genuineness of the claims made by the police and eye-witnesses.

“I can understand that due to ongoing other problems in the form of managing after effect of riots and Covid-19, there could have been delay in going ahead with investigation. However, the artificiality of claim, is different thing which creates doubt regarding genuineness of the claim made by IO and aforesaid police eye-witnesses. PW1, PW2 and PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on the aspect of identification of accused persons,” the Court stated.

In view of the above, it proceeded to acquit the accused.

“Thus, the overall effect remains that I find it unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW6, PW9 and PW13, to believe that all the accused persons were part of the mob, which had attacked upon the property of PW1,” the judge held.

[Read Judgment]

Attachment
PDF
State v Mohd Shahnawaz & Ors.pdf
Preview
Delhi PoliceKarkardooma CourtAcquittalDelhi Riots 2020
barandbench
Follow Us