Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 740 (PAT)

Ram Chandra Roy v. Banking Ombudsman

2006-08-22

J.N.BHATT, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. After having heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts and Circumstances, as well as, the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not filing the Letters Patent Appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay shall stand allowed and the delay of 39 days in filing this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand condoned. 2. Rule is made absolute. No costs. 3. By this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has questioned the legality and validity of the part of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.3.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 4476 of 2004, whereby, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, as well as, the merits the learned Single Judge found that the writ petition is frivolous and burdening the Court with a most unwanted matter while observing, in view of no objection of the counsel for the Bank, for withdrawal of an amount of Rs. 3,12,263.96 paise allowed by respondent No. 1. 4. In nut shell, let there be a short history of the litigation which has led to filing of the Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 5. The appellant original writ petitioner first initiated a legal battle by filing a Money Suit No. 10 of 1966 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Ranchi, for an amount of Rs. 1,25,439.55 Paise which came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the defendant to pay an interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum along with cost which was questioned before the appellate Court by filing First Appeal No. 533 of 1967 in this High Court by the Company and an Execution Case No. 18 of 1967 was also filed by the original petitioner- appellant before us, before the trial court. 6. This Court had stayed the execution case with a condition that the decreetal amount shall be deposited in State Bank of India making it specifically clear that the decreetal amount will lie in the Bank till the disposal of the First Appeal and successful party will draw it. The Company had deposited the decreetal amount. The First Appeal resulted into dismissal. thereafter, the State Bank of India filed certificate that the decreetal amount is with the Bank but net renewed after 25.11.1972. The Company had deposited the decreetal amount. The First Appeal resulted into dismissal. thereafter, the State Bank of India filed certificate that the decreetal amount is with the Bank but net renewed after 25.11.1972. The executing court made a query from the bank for renewal of the T.D.R. (term Deposit Receipt). Accordingly, the Bank replied that the amount can be reinvested in the term deposit. Later on, upon attention being drawn by the appellant of the trial court about the failure of the bank in performing its duty of renewal, the court directed the bank as per rules and circulars framed by the Bank to proceed. The bank renewed the deposits from time to time which was calculated at the simple interest on that amount and with protest the petitioner received Rs. 4,84,179.62 paise. 7. It may, also, be recorded here that the original writ petitioner initiated a Complaint case No. 84 of 2001 before the banking Ombudsman. The matter was contested by the bank, inter alia, contending that the original petitioner is not entitled for any amount more than Rs. 65,852.74 paise with simple interest. The claim of the original writ petitioner has been for compound interest, whereas, the plea of the bank has been that interest can be payable at the simple rate of interest. 8. The Bank Ombudsman had called the original petitioner to receive the amount deposited with interest. The bank offered that amount with interest to the petitioner but the original writ petitioner had not received that amount as the interest, according to him, was not calculated as per the compound rate of interest. 9. That ultimately led to filing of a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7068 of 2003 which came to be dismissed. The Bank Ombudsman refused to interfere in the matter and, therefore, C.W.J.C. No. 4476 of 2004 came to be filed which, as stated hereinbefore, came to be dismissed by making observation highlighted hereinabove. 10. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties. We have examined the factual profile, as well as, the relevant propositions of law. 11. The Bank Ombudsman refused to interfere in the matter and, therefore, C.W.J.C. No. 4476 of 2004 came to be filed which, as stated hereinbefore, came to be dismissed by making observation highlighted hereinabove. 10. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties. We have examined the factual profile, as well as, the relevant propositions of law. 11. Firstly, let it be mentioned that upon the tracing of litigative history which has led to filing of the Letters Patent Appeal by invocation of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent prima facie would go to show that the learned Single Judge at best should have considered the merits of the petition in terms of the provision of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, Superintendence power of the High Court. When a judicial adjudication on facts upon investigation of evidence is reached, there would not be a question of considering the factual aspects even in the power of superintendence in terms of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Apart from that, there are disputed, complicated questions of facts which by itself ought to have been sufficient to reject the petition. Again, without going into the question whether there would be a Letters Patent Appeal in terms of the provision of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein he has exercised his power under. Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the superintendence power of the High Court, keeping it open, we find that there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. 13. This dispute which entered into the legal battle in 1967 has traveled in a very long legal conduit pipes till this date now must end, not only because of its long life but because of the fact that the competent civil court has upon recording full-fledged evidence reached judicial adjudication. As such, the findings of fact ordinarily, should not have been gone into and cannot be gone into only in the superintendence power of the High Court under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. The jurisdictional sweep of this Court is to see as to whether any serious question of law is involved. We find no such question. 14. As such, the findings of fact ordinarily, should not have been gone into and cannot be gone into only in the superintendence power of the High Court under Art. 227 of the constitution of India. The jurisdictional sweep of this Court is to see as to whether any serious question of law is involved. We find no such question. 14. However, keeping that question of law open to be considered further in an appropriate case, we find no substance and merits in the present Letters Patent Appeal which deserves only and only legal fate that is dismissal. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed with costs.