AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Actg. C.J.
By the medium of present writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing letter, dated 18th November, 2013 (Annexure P-12) issued by the respondents. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to declare the Cash Credit Limit A/c No. 4477008700001398 of limit Rupees fifty lacs as Non Performance Account (''NPA'') and further ask them to allow the transaction in the Cash Credit Limit of A/c No. 4477008700001398 of limit Rupees fifty lacs and all the arbitrary decisions made by the respondents be quashed on the grounds taken in the memo of petition.
The respondents have filed reply and it is specifically averred that the cash credit limit of Rs. 45,00,000/- was granted to the petitioner on 19th July, 2012, which he availed. The entire stock was destroyed on the intervening night of 14th and 15th April, 2013 in fire incident and insurance claim of Rs. 31,53,008/- was made, which was directly deposited by the insurer in the bank. The respondents have averred that the petitioner approached the respondents for operation of the cash credit limit sanctioned to him but they failed to do so.
It is specifically stated by the respondents in para 6 of the reply that the respondents were ready and willing to rehabilitate the petitioner subject to the completion of codal formalities, which the petitioner failed to do so. Further, it is stated that a term loan, i.e. cash credit facility granted by the State Bank of India is declared as ''NPA''. The respondents have also specifically denied the other pleas made by the petitioner.
The question which arises for consideration is-whether the writ petition is maintainable? The petitioner was asked to show how this writ is maintainable, failed to do so. The disputed questions of fact are involved in this petition.
The entire controversy revolves around the question-whether the respondents are bound to allow the petitioner to operate the cash credit limit without completion of codal formalities, mention of which has been made in para 6 of the reply. The answer is in negative.
The entire case is based on documents executed by the petitioner with the respondents. The disputed questions of fact are involved in the writ petition. Not only the disputed questions of fact are involved, but the parties have also executed documents and the petitioner has to seek appropriate remedy. It is beaten law of land that disputed questions of facts cannot be gone through in a civil writ petition.
It is also worthwhile to mention herein that the respondents have already treated the said account as ''NPA''.
Having said so, the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed alongwith all pending applications accordingly. However, dismissal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy permissible under law.