N.J. INDUSTRY vs State Bank of India

WE have heard the complainant who, on his request was permitted to argue his case in person despite his being represented by Counsel. After considering the oral arguments of the complainant and also the written submissions filed by him and after hearing the Counsel for the respondent, we are of opinion that this complaint petition has to fail on three-fold grounds. .

FIRSTLY, the grievance raised by the petitioner arises mainly out of the stoppage by the respondent Bank of the cash credit facility that had been originally extended to the respondent firm. The cash credit facilities were withdrawn by the respondent Bank as early as in the year 1983 on receipt by it of instructions from Smt. Jyotsna Arun Mehta, who was a partner of the complainant firm stating that there was a dispute between the partners interse. The cause of action arose to the complainant in 1983 when the Bank withdrew the cash credit facility. The argument advanced by the complainant that it is a continuing cause of action does not appeal to us as acceptable on sound. This complaint instituted in 1992 for redressal of the complainant''s grievance arising out of the stoppage of the cash credit facility which took place in 1983 is clearly time barred. Secondly, it is seen from the records that the partnership firm of M/s N.J. Industry on whose behalf the complainant has supported to institute this complaint in his alleged capacity as partner, has been dissolved by the Court of the Fifth Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Surat by order dated 30.11.1991 with effect from 14.10.1983. In view of the said order passed by the Court it is manifest that this complaint petition brought on behalf of a defunct firm is not maintainable.

Lastly, as early as in 1984 the respondent-Bank has instituted a suit for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the complainant and the erstwhile firm under the cash credit account etc. in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surat as Special Civil Suit No. 383 of 1984and the said suit is still pending disposal before that Court. The subject matter of the present complaint petition is substantially identical with the one involved in the afore mentioned suit and the matter is thus subjudice.

IN the light of what has been stated above it is clear that this complaint petition has only to be dismissed. We do so. There will be no order as to costs. Complaint Petition dismissed.