The Madras High Court’s decision essentially provided the petitioner with an opportunity to have their case reviewed and the loan amount recalculated in compliance with the government directives.
DATED: 31.08.2023
CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P(MD)No.21308 of 2023
Introduction:
The case centers around a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 3 and 4 (a housing society) to cancel the entire interest amount from a housing loan borrowed by the petitioner’s father from the fourth respondent. The loan was sanctioned in Loan No.3424 on 12.09.2001. The petitioner’s claim is based on a representation dated 10.08.2023, arguing that the interest should be completely waived off in accordance with government orders.
Factual Background:
The petitioner’s father, Karuppaiah, had applied for a housing loan from the fourth respondent society. The society approved a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 on 12.09.2001, and the loan was associated with Loan Account No. 3424. According to the petitioner, Karuppaiah had been regularly paying the loan dues until 2006. Tragically, he passed away on 07.02.2018. In response to this, the fourth respondent society sent a notice to the petitioner on 24.04.2023, along with a calculation memo.
The calculation memo indicated that, in line with government orders, specifically G.O(Ms) No. 40, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.03.2015, and G.O(Ms) No. 31, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 03.03.2023, the interest on the loan should be waived under a One Time Settlement Scheme. The petitioner was informed that he had to pay Rs. 4,72,022 to the society under this scheme, and it was extended until 02.09.2023.
Challenging the notice and calculation memo, the petitioner filed the writ petition, contending that as per the government orders mentioned, the entire interest should be waived, and only the principal amount should be collected from him.
Arguments Presented:
Petitioner’s Contentions: The petitioner argued that the government orders, G.O(Ms) No. 40 and G.O(Ms) No. 31, clearly mandated the waiver of interest under the One Time Settlement Scheme. They claimed that the notice from the fourth respondent society was in violation of these orders. The petitioner sought the Court’s intervention to ensure compliance with the government directives.
Respondent’s Response:
The Special Government Pleader representing the respondents contended that the calculations provided in the notice were in accordance with the government orders. They argued that there was no need for the Court to interfere with the notice as it adhered to the stipulations set forth in the orders.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
The High Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the government orders, issued its judgment.
The Court recognized that the petitioner’s claim was based on the government orders that prescribed the waiver of interest under the One Time Settlement Scheme. However, the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s case.
Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to settle the amount payable by September 2, 2023. Furthermore, it instructed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in light of the government orders, specifically G.O(Ms) No. 40 and G.O(Ms) No. 31, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 16.03.2015, and 03.03.2023, respectively.
The Court’s decision essentially provided the petitioner with an opportunity to have their case reviewed and the loan amount recalculated in compliance with the government directives.
Conclusion:
The judgment in this case highlights the importance of adhering to government orders and directives, especially in matters related to financial transactions such as housing loans. It demonstrates the role of the judiciary in ensuring that government policies are implemented correctly and that citizens are provided with the benefits to which they are entitled under such policies. This case analysis underscores the significance of government orders and their impact on legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for transparent and equitable practices in financial matters.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar