BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA TAVsE vs LIQUIDATOR, ICHALKARANJI URBAN CO-OP. BANK LTD. & 2 ORS

Shri Balkrishna Ramchandra Tavse, complainant/petitioner was the Managing Director of Ichalkaranji Urban Co-op Bank Ltd.. He resigned from the said post on 24.4.2006. The petitioner deposited various amounts with the Ichalkaranji Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. while he was in service. Those amounts were deposited from 24.4.2007 to 1.2.2008 in intervals. The total amount deposited by the petitioner came to Rs.11,52,000/-. All those amounts were deposited in Fixed account with different rate of interest.

On the day he resigned from the bank i.e. on 16.4.2008 itself, the complainant raised a loan against the said deposits amounting to Rs.10 Lakh. As per the rules, the loan against the Fixed Deposits was permissible upto the limit of 75% and in exception circumstances, upto the limit of 90% of the loan. The petitioner also moved an application to the bank with the request to adjust the loan amount against his Fixed Deposits. Thereafter, the bank went into liquidation and the liquidator was appointed.

The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum with the following prayers:- "a) the present Revision Petition may kindly be allowed; b) the order passed in consumer Appeal No. A/12/113 of 2012 passed by the Learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, may kindly be quashed and set aside and allow the present Revision Petition of the Petitioner by quashing and set aside the Judgment and order passed in the Consumer Complaint Application No. 328 of 2011 on 12.12.2011;

c) the Respondent Bank be directed to adjust the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts on the dates as and when they matured and correct the loan account of the Petitioner and submit the revised claim to the DICGCI for sanction.

d) the DICGCI be directed to sanction the revised claim of the Petitioner after adjusting the amount of Fixed Deposit Receipts on the dates as and when they matured.

e) the cost of this petition of Rs.50,000/- be provided to the Petitioner.

f) the Respondent Bank be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental psychological harassment to the Petitioner.

g) Pass any other order and/or directions as this Hon''ble Commission may deem fit and proper."

The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the State Commission, which, too, dismissed the appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. First of all, he failed to show that the petitioner was empowered to sanction the loan of 90% to himself. The petitioner could not cite any such rule. He, however, submits that the General Manager was authorized to sanction the loan but it is apparent that he is not empowered to grant and sanction in his own favour and that is to be sanctioned by some other authority.

Secondly, the fact that he had resigned from the Bank on the same day casts a flim of doubt over his bona fides and there is no evidence to show that there was a meeting of Managing Committee so as to sanction the loan as against the said Fixed Deposits.

Furthermore, 90% loan was permissible under exceptional circumstances. There is nothing on record to demonstrate as to what were the exceptional circumstances for the complainant to raise loan beyond 75%.

It is apparent that being the Managing Director, he was aware that the bank was about to go in liquidation. He tried to save his own skin and left the public in lurch. He cannot be given special status than the other creditors of the bank. He will get the amount according to is proportionate share. If the complaint made by the complainant is permitted, it would prejudice the interest of other creditors irretrievably.

Again, no permission under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was granted in favour of the complainant/petitioner. The State Commission rightly held "It is well established principle of law that whenever bank is under liquidation, liquidator is supposed to liquidate the assets of the said corporate body and, thereafter, he has to distribute those assets on pro rate basis so that every creditor should get due share from the assets of the society. If this is not done and if some of the creditors like the complainant herein are preferred and they are paid without following the procedure of liquidation, other creditors'' interest will be pre-judiciously affected and that will be contrary to the spirit of law. Complainant, thus, as appears, is interested in carrying out illegal process of liquidating his assets. This is not permissible under the law. In fact for such a complaint there is no permission granted of the Co-operative Societies Registrar. Under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 permission is very specific. In

the present complaint such provision has been overlooked by the complainant. What we find that very approach of the complainant is fraudulent in prosecuting the matter. Co-operative Societies Act cannot be by-passed to the deteriment and to the prejudice of all other creditors like the complainant. Therefore on careful reading of the letter dated 05.10.2011, we are of the opinion that the Registrar has not granted permission to file legal proceeding as against liquidator in any court of law and much more so before the Consumer Forum. In view of this complaint is not tenable and it has been rightly dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Appeal is also without any merits. It is hereby rejected."

It is thus clear that the complainant has made vein attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of law.

The revision petition is therefore dismissed.