AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K. Surendra Mohan
The petitioner is a member of the fourth respondent Co- operative Bank and according to him, residing permanently within the limits of the said Society. The petitioner was a subscriber to a monthly deposit scheme having a total sala value of Rupees one lakh conducted by the fourth respondent. At the first draw of the lots itself, the petitioner became the prized subscriber. However, the amount has not been disbursed to him by the fourth respondent, according to the petitioner on flimsy grounds. The petitioner contends that though he had produced four persons as guarantors the fourth respondent was not satisfied. The petitioner therefore complained to the third respondent who has issued Ext.P7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action of the fourth respondent is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent. Along with the counter affidavit, Ext.R4(a) document has also been produced to show that the petitioner as well as the WPC 6682/2012 2 persons who have offered to stand as guarantors for the petitioner are persons who do not have a good track record of repayment of the dues to the society. It is pointed out on the basis of Ext.R4(a) that they are all persons who have defaulted payment of amounts to the Society and therefore, the fourth respondent had to initiate legal action for recovery of the amounts due.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, though there was default in respect of certain previous transactions, all the amounts due to the fourth respondent society have been paid and the transactions have been closed as early as in the year 2007. The petitioner is a person who does not owe any money to any one. It is also pointed out that the petitioner''s wife is a person who owns an extent of 1 acre 38 cents of immovable property within the limits of the fourth respondent society. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned action of the fourth respondent is liable to be set aside.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the fourth respondent at length. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.
It is to be noticed in the first place that the transaction in question is essentially commercial in nature. The petitioner was a WPC 6682/2012 3 subscriber to a monthly deposit scheme formulated by the fourth respondent society. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the prized subscriber. However, the scheme stipulates that the amount shall be disbursed only on the petitioner furnishing sufficient security/guarantee for the said amount. The fourth respondent bank is not satisfied with the guarantors produced by the petitioner. Ext.R4(a) shows that the petitioner, his mother Smt. Philomina and wife Smt. Bindu are all persons who do not have a good track record of repaying the amounts to the bank. It is trite that the fourth respondent bank cannot be compelled to part with its money without it being satisfied that its money is properly secured. The said satisfaction would have to be arrived at by the fourth respondent society itself on an evaluation of the security/guarantee that is offered by the petitioner. Those are areas into which this Court would be reluctant to enter. It is certainly open to the bank to reject a security or guarantee that is offered on the basis of the credit worthiness of the person concerned. This Court would not sit in judgment over the decision of the fourth respondent society in such matters.
In the present case, the bank was not satisfied with the credit worthiness of the persons who have been offered as WPC 6682/2012 4 guarantors. It was for the said reason that the bank has declined to pay the amount to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said conduct of the fourth respondent the petitioner had complained to the third respondent. The third respondent got the said complaint enquired into through the unit inspector, took note of the objections of the bank and has issued Ext.P7 proceedings by which the petitioner has been directed to produce the guarantees of four acceptable persons who are residents within the area of operation of the society. Though Ext.P7 is dated 24-10-2011 the petitioner does not appear to have done anything pursuant thereto. It shall therefore be open to the petitioner to approach the fourth respondent bank in compliance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P7. I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.