AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
The petitioner was a partner in a registered firm known as “M/s Monarch Vision†which was operating from “B-6 Industrial Estate
Kashipur, District Nainital U.P†(as it was then). The firm had taken a loan from a bank known as “Bareilly Corporation Bank†in the year
1989. The loan requested and sanctioned for the firm was Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh only). According to the petitioner, out of the total
amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh only) sanctioned in favour of the firm, the amount ultimately disbursed was only Rs. 6,25,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only), which was disbursed in the name of the firm M/s Monarch Vision. After some time the account of
the firm was declared as Non-performing Assets (NPA) and recovery proceedings were initiated against the firm.
Meanwhile, in the year 1999 as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India, this bank i.e. Bareilly Corporation
Bank stood merged with the Bank of Baroda.
By this time, the liability of the petitioner firm had also shot up and ultimately recovery initiated now at the hands of Bank of Baroda. In these
proceedings, a One Time Settlement was reached between the parties in the year 2007. A certificate to this effect has also been annexed with the
petition.
Now after a period of 13 years, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
with a prayer that the bank had taken an excess amount from the petitioner in the said settlement and the Bank should be directed to reimburse an
amount of Rs. 5,47,540.89 (Rupees Five Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty and Eighty Nine paise only) to them. Why such a figure has
been arrived has also not been explained.
The learned Counsel for the bank Mr. Siddhartha Jain, who appears in this matter, has prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed on more
grounds than one. First and foremost, the writ petition has not been filed by the firm, which had taken the loan, but by one of its partner namely Mrs.
Neeta Arora. More importantly, the petition is highly belated, as it has been filed after a period of 13 years without any explanation as to what has
caused this inordinate delay. Another objection raised at the hands of learned counsel for the bank is that writ petition in such cases, in any case, is not
a remedy. The petitioner was always at liberty to initiate civil proceedings for the recovery of the amount, if any, against the bank, which he had
chosen not to do, and has filed a highly belated writ petition before this Court, without any effort to even explain the delay.
There are truly more than one anomalies in the writ petition, as have been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the bank. First and
foremost, the writ petition has itself not been filed by the firm but by one of its partners. Even if one ignores this technical flaw, there are absolutely no
reasons for condoning the inordinate delay. The delay is of 13 years, which has not been reasonably explained. In any case, the petitioner always had
a remedy to file a civil suit for the recovery of the amount, at the appropriate time. He did not do so.
Another factor which must be considered by this Court is whether after a final settlement had been made with the bank, the petitioner was justified
in coming to the Court. But that is an entirely different matter, which this Court is not going into since the petition has been dismissed on other
grounds.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.