HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1035 OF 2014 DATED:23.7.2014 Between:
Abdul Kareem … Appellant And The General Manager Indian Bank H.O., HRM Department (Staff Housing Loans) Chennai and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1035 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Hon’ble trial Judge dt.4.4.2014 whereby and whereunder His Lordship modified the order passed in the writ petition, with certain observations.
The fact is that the appellant before us was an employee of the respondent – bank. He took a loan from the bank and could not repay the loan while in service. He was compulsorily retired and he accepted his retirement. Condition No.28 of the terms and conditions of the agreement clearly stipulates that in case of retirement of a loanee employee if loan amount is not repaid during his service tenure, he/she has to pay interest at commercial rate after retirement. The aforesaid terms and conditions were not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – petitioner before the Hon’ble trial Judge.
It has been recorded by the Hon’ble trial Judge that the only grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before His Lordship was relating to charge of interest on monthly rests, instead of quarterly rests. The respondent Bank reconsidered the issue and charged interest on the basis of quarterly rests and has given a corrected statement of account. It was found that an amount of Rs.6,78,079/- was due and payable by the appellant – petitioner. It was also recorded by the Hon’ble trial Judge that the petitioner is prepared to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in one lump sum. However, the Hon’ble trial Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter. We also find that the learned trial Judge gave liberty to the appellant - petitioner to approach the bank for further negotiations for reducing his liability.
In the circumstances, going by above recordings of the Hon’ble Trial Judge, we do not find anything to decide in this appeal. It is, however, expected that the bank concerned will obviously hold negotiations on the basis of the observations of the Hon’ble trial Judge, if the appellant approaches.
We accordingly dismiss the appeal observing as above. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 23.7.2014 bnr