Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 750 (CAL)

Saurav Das v. UCO Bank

2014-08-12

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2014
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The three appellants in the MAT are aggrieved by an order of a single Judge dated June 5, 2014 passed in their WP No. 27443(W) of 2012. The order of the single Judge dated June 5, 2014 is quoted below:- “The petitioners in paragraph 2 of the petition claims that they are Managing shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Lakshmi Janardan Jew Thakur. Per contra, it is also claimed by Mr. Banerjere, learned advocate for the respondent 5 that he is the Managing shebait. Since there are conflicting claims, which cannot be decided on affidavit evidence, remedy of the petitioners lies in instituting an appropriate suit before the civil court for obtaining necessary declaration so as to operate the bank account in question. The writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the civil court. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.” The appellants have filed a CAN No.6573 of 2014 for interim reliefs. They have filed another CAN No.6574 of 2014 for addition of party. The fifth respondent has filed an opposition to the CAN No.6573 of 2014. Advocates for the UCO Bank and the State Bank of India and their respective managers are present. Advocates for the parties have submitted that the issue involved in the appeal can be disposed of at this stage itself. It is evident that the single Judge dismissed the WP holding that the facts of the case gave rise to issues which could not be conveniently decided by the writ court, and that the appellants should be relegated to the civil court. It has been submitted that the appellants are the present managing shebaits of the deity in question, namely, Sri Sri Iswar Lakshmi Janardan Jew Thakur, and that previously the first and second appellants and the fifth respondent were the three managing shebaits of the deity. The case of the appellants is that because of a letter dated July 4, 2012 (CAN 6573 p.123) the UCO Bank and the State Bank issued the letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 28, 2012 (CAN 6573 pp.101 and 102) that the appellants would not be allowed to operate the accounts of the deity with the banks. Mr. Basu appearing for the appellants has submitted as follows. Mr. Basu appearing for the appellants has submitted as follows. Any two of the three managing shebaits are authorised to operate the bank accounts. Hence on the basis of the fifth respondent’s objection letter dated July 4, 2012 the two banks could not prevent any two of the appellants and, in any case, the first and second appellants from operating the deity’s bank accounts with them. The single Judge failed to appreciate this fact and consequently relegated the appellants to the civil court, when there was no need for the appellants to go to the civil court. Advocates for the two banks have submitted that the banks wrote the letters dated October 3, 2012 and September 28, 2012 because of the written objection submitted by the fifth respondent describing himself as one of the three managing shebaits of the deity; and that it is true that according to the recorded account operation instructions any two of the three managing shebaits of the deity are empowered to operate the deity’s bank accounts with the banks. Mr. Banerjee appearing for the fifth respondent has submitted as follows. It is true that any two of the three managing shebaits of the deity are authorised to operate the accounts maintained by the deity with the two banks. The instructions were given when the first and second appellants and the fifth respondent were the managing shebaits. When disputes and differences arose because of defalcation of funds by the first and second appellants and removal of the idol of the deity by them, the fifth respondent also instituting a criminal case requested the banks not to permit the first and second appellants to operate the two bank accounts. The banks were to act strictly according to the recorded account operation instructions the three managing shebaits had jointly given. Under the instructions any two managing shebaits of the deity were and still are entitled to operate the deity’s two accounts with the banks. Nothing related to the accounts entitled the fifth respondent to rescind or cancel singly the recorded account operation instructions the three managing shebaits had jointly given. Under the instructions any two managing shebaits of the deity were and still are entitled to operate the deity’s two accounts with the banks. Nothing related to the accounts entitled the fifth respondent to rescind or cancel singly the recorded account operation instructions the three managing shebaits had jointly given. Hence the banks remaining bound by the recorded account operation instructions, in the absence of any law empowering them or any court order entitling them to prevent the appellants from operating the accounts, could not prevent them from operating the accounts treating the fifth respondent’s letter as the source of their power or right to take the steps; for the fifth respondent possessed no power to impose an injunction on the banks by writing a letter stating his objections against operation of the bank accounts. We are, therefore, of the view that the banks preventing the appellants from operating the bank accounts of the deity acted illegally and arbitrarily. The only issue in the WP was whether the banks’ steps taken by them by issuing the two letters were lawful. Hence the appellants were actually questioning the actions of the banks. The fifth respondent asserted a right whose existence was not to be ascertained and declared by the banks. They could not allow his claimed right to prevail over the appellants’ right flowing from the recorded account operation instructions. The fifth respondent’s right, if any, could be enforced only through appropriate court; and he could ask the banks not to permit the appellants to operate the accounts in question, only if he had obtained appropriate order from court for binding the banks and the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view that the single Judge was not justified in relegating the appellants to the civil court, when it was for the fifth respondent to go to such court, if he wanted. For these reasons, we dispose of the MAT and the two CANs ordering as follows. The order of the single Judge dated June 5, 2014 is hereby set aside. The two banks shall permit any two managing shebaits of the deity to operate the respective bank accounts of the deity until the operation instructions are withdrawn in the same manner in which they were given or any order of court directs them to act otherwise. The order of the single Judge dated June 5, 2014 is hereby set aside. The two banks shall permit any two managing shebaits of the deity to operate the respective bank accounts of the deity until the operation instructions are withdrawn in the same manner in which they were given or any order of court directs them to act otherwise. Nothing herein shall prevent the fifth respondent from approaching the appropriate court seeking reliefs according to law. No costs.