Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1801 (RAJ)

Bank Of Baroda Thro. Bran. Manager v. Brij Mohan

2009-08-11

GOVIND MATHUR, N.P.GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - This is unfortunate second round of litigation by the defaulting loanee who has failed to make repayment of the loan taken by him once upon a time. Earlier when the proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner for recovery of the amount under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974. The petitioner did not appear before the S.D.O. even to submit objections. However, this Court in D.B. S.A.W. No. 1162/97 decided on 13.11.1997 granted substantial indulgence to the writ petitioner, and passed the following order:- "1. The appellant shall appear before the respondent Bank within two weeks alongwith a certified copy of this order. He shall submit the requisite proof about the aforesaid deposites and shall also make written application to adjust this amount towards the loan amount alongwith interest accrued on the deposits made by him. If any such application is moved and the Bank is satisfied about the aforesaid deposits, then the amount shall be adjusted towards the loan amount. After deciding the application/adjusting the aforesaid amount of deposits as alleged by the appellant, the Bank shall give a statement of account to the appellant of the amount recoverable from him and shall fix 4 monthly instalments. In case, the monthly instalments are deposited in time, the coercive steps for realisation of the amount shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that if first instalment or subsequent instalments are not paid in time, the recovery proceedings shall continue against the appellant." 2. In compliance thereof the appellant furnished statement to the petitioner being Annexure-7, still the payment was not made, the present writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the same, substantially on the ground, that it was sent to the petitioner without giving opportunity of hearing, and while challenging the rate of interest, also raised various other disputed questions. 3. It would suffice to say, that on the face of the earlier judgment Annexure-5, and the statement of account having been furnished as Annexure-7, no right survived to the petitioner, capable of being ventilated in the writ petition to seek any redress. Notwithstanding this, surprisingly the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this petition is required to be disposed of by directing the petitioner to pay the total remaining amount of Rs. 18,506/- in two instalments. Notwithstanding this, surprisingly the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order as under:- "Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this petition is required to be disposed of by directing the petitioner to pay the total remaining amount of Rs. 18,506/- in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the Bank on or before 30.6.2000 and the second and last instalment of Rs. 8506/- shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 30.9.2000. Before parting, I must state that a request made by learned counsel Mr. Chanda for the respondent Bank to award interest on the amount which is to be paid by the petitioner to the Bank in two instalments, is not granted in view of the fact that this petition is disposed of by keeping in mind the spirit of Lok Adalat. If any breach of this order is committed, then the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to recover the amount with interest from the petitioner." With these observations this petition is disposed of." 4. This has been challenged by the Bank by way of the present appeal. 5. Thus, it is abundantly clear that the learned Single Judge, without going into the matter, in a wholly superficial, and sleep-shot manner, has proceeded to dispose of the writ petition, purportedly keeping in mind the purpose of Lok Adalat, and disposed of the petition by directing the petitioner to pay the total remaining amount of Rs. 18,506/- in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the Bank on or before 30.6.2000 and the second and last instalment of Rs. 8506/- shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 30.9.2000. It passes our comprehension, as to what were the parameters under consideration with the learned Single Judge, on the face of the provisions of Section 21A. 6. Thus, we do not find ourselves in the position to sustain the impugned order. 7. 8506/- shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 30.9.2000. It passes our comprehension, as to what were the parameters under consideration with the learned Single Judge, on the face of the provisions of Section 21A. 6. Thus, we do not find ourselves in the position to sustain the impugned order. 7. Coming to the merits of the writ, it would suffice to say, that as is clear from Annex.5, that despite notice, the petitioner did not appear, nor did he submit any objection of whatever nature, and when the things came only to attachment, the petitioner rushed to this Court, and therein the petitioner was granted relief vide Annexure-5 but then the petitioner did not keep the word by complying with the directions contained in Annexure-5. 8. That apart, in view of the provisions of Section 21A as interpreted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao reported in 1999 DNJ (SC) 41 and in view of the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 3095 , in our view, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to any relief in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. However, before dismissing the writ petition, it is required to be considered that may be that the learned Single Judge's order has hereby been set aside, however, the fact remains that in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner has deposited the amounts as directed, and felt to have been relieved of the liability any further. In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct that the appellant should sympathetically consider, as to whether the petitioner should be held liable for payment of interest on the amount, as was outstanding on the date of passing of the order of the learned Single Judge till the date. 10. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid clarification and direction to the bank.Writ Petition Dismissed *******