Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1165 (JHR)

Raja Tyres v. Union of India

2015-09-22

D.N.PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J.: This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4011 of 2003 dated 5th July, 2012, whereby, the petition preferred by appellant (original petitioner) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appellant (original petitioner) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. The prayer of the appellant in the writ was for appropriate orders/directions to the respondent nos.1 to 3 to make inquiry against the respondent nos. 4 to 6 as to why they did not provide subsidy to the petitioner/appellant under Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1993 on 21.09.1994 issued from the Office of the Respondent no. 2 vide Central Office Letter No. SIB/SSI/C-10/93-94 dated 18.10.1993 (SIB No. 54/1993) and why they provide Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1990 only. 3. It was further prayed that for an appropriate order/direction to the respondent nos. 4 to 6 directing them to refund the excess amount as interest recovered from the petitioner/appellant prior to 21.09.1994 with interest since 21.09.1994 in terms of Central Office Letter No. SIB/SSI/C-10/93-94 dated 18.10.1993 issued to all branches of Bank all over India by the respondent no.2 giving reliefs to the borrower like the petitioner/appellant affected by the November 1984 riots by way of additional reduction in interest subsidy rate on bank loan above Rs. 25,000/- to 1% simple interest per annum. 4. The petitioner/appellant was enjoying Credit facilities with the respondent no. 4's Bank and he was sanctioned an overdraft facilities of Rs. 2,50,000/-with the deposit of Rs. 1,80,000/-fixed deposit in the said bank and the petitioner/appellant's A/C is ODH A/C No. 2/90. 5. The petitioner/appellant did the business through Bank honestly with the regular payment of interest even penal interest and the bank used to charge the interest @ 12.5% to 25% per annum in the said periods. That even after the riot of 1984 the petitioner/appellant paid the interest as well as penal interest as charged by the bank. 6. The respondent no.2 issued Interest Subsidy Scheme for borrower like the petitioner/appellant affected by November 1984 riots firstly in the year of 1990 vide Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1990 for charging @ 6% simple interest and subsequently in the year of 1993 for charging @ 1% simple interest in case of the borrowers like the petitioner/appellant affected by the November 1984's riots. 7. 7. The petitioner/appellant paid the interest at the rate charged by the bank and he was entitled to receive the excess amount paid by him as interest under the Interest subsidy scheme of 1993 which provided for charging 1% simple interest per annum but the bank charged the interest @ 6% per annum under the interest subsidy scheme of the year 1990 and returned the excess amount amounting to Rs. 99,740/-on 21.09.1994 by crediting the same in petitioner/appellant's A/C No. 2/90 and since the petitioner/appellant had deposited Rs. 1,80,000/-fixed deposit in the said bank and by adjusting the said fixed deposit amount of maturity the bank closed the petitioner/appellant account with assurance to the petitioner/appellant that now nothing is due against the petitioner/appellant on or after 21.09.1994. 8. On 02.02.2000 and 25.07.2000 the petitioner/appellant asked from the bank for supply of statement of his ODH A/C No. 2/90 since the period 01.04.1984 to 31.03.1992 to know the position but the bank has not supplied the statement of A/C from 01.04.1984 to 2nd of June 1987 and they supplied only statement of A/c from 3rd June, 1987. 9. The petitioner/appellant had no knowledge regarding issuance of Central Office letter of 1993 by the respondent no. 2 and soon as he got the knowledge he wrote letters to the respondents starting from the year of 1999 for refund of his interest already paid under the Interest subsidy scheme of 1993 and the respondent no. 3 also asked from the bank namely respondent nos. 4 to 6 regarding the petitioner/appellant's claim and in reply to respondent no. 3 the respondent no. 4 issued a letter on 11.04.2002 informing them that the matter regarding the petitioner/appellant's account no. 2/90 may be treated as closed as because the interest subsidy scheme 1990, the amount of Rs. 99740/-was already been closed to ODH A/C No. 2/90 of the petitioner/appellant on 21.09.1994 and the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner/appellant vide their letter dated 18th June, 2002. 10. Hence briefly the claim of the petitioner/appellant is that the bank has only provided the interest subsidy under the scheme of 1990 on 21.09.94 though they should provide the interest subsidy under the scheme of 1993, and basically this is what has been reiterated in his arguments. 11. 3 informed the petitioner/appellant vide their letter dated 18th June, 2002. 10. Hence briefly the claim of the petitioner/appellant is that the bank has only provided the interest subsidy under the scheme of 1990 on 21.09.94 though they should provide the interest subsidy under the scheme of 1993, and basically this is what has been reiterated in his arguments. 11. The petitioner/appellant finding no alternative moved before this Hon'ble Court his writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 4011 of 2003 in which the respondents appeared and filed their counter affidavit and after hearing the parties, this Hon'ble Court dismissed the writ application by order dated 5.7.2012, on the grounds that refund of Rs.99,740/-was granted to him, the scheme lapsed, the petitioner did not challenge the non grant of benefit and finally he moved the Court after 9 years. Hence, this appeal. 12. The respondents have appeared and filed counter affidavit and stated that the petitioner was enjoying credit facilities with the respondent no. 4 having ODH A/C no. 2/90. The respondent no.2 issued interest subsidy scheme for borrowers like the petitioner/appellant affected by Nov. 1984 riots, firstly in the year 1990 vide interest subsidy scheme 1990 for charging @ 6% simple interest and subsequent in the year of 1993 for charging @ 1% simple interest in case of the borrowers like the petitioner/appellant affected by the Nov. 1984 riots. 13. The respondent Bank No. 6 received a credit DBA No. 702 dt. 30.07.1994 for the total amount of central interest subsidy receivable from the Govt. of India and the waived granted by the Bank for Rs. 99,740/-taking interest as 1% simple. The respondent Bank No. 6 vide letter dated 24.08.1994 informed the petitioner that Govt. of India has sanctioned interest subsidy scheme for 1984 Riot victim for a sum of Rs. 99,740/-only. 14. The petitioner/appellant vide letter dated 16.09.94 made a request to respondent Bank no. 4 to adjust the subsidy amount in his ODH A/C 2/90 and for reduction of over draft facility. Accordingly his ODA A/C No. 2/90 closed after crediting the subsidy amount of Rs. 99,740/-taking rate of interest as 1% simple duly acknowledged by petitioner/appellant. 15. Having gone through the submissions and the material on record, no fault can be made out against the reasons and decision of the Single Judge. 16. Accordingly his ODA A/C No. 2/90 closed after crediting the subsidy amount of Rs. 99,740/-taking rate of interest as 1% simple duly acknowledged by petitioner/appellant. 15. Having gone through the submissions and the material on record, no fault can be made out against the reasons and decision of the Single Judge. 16. The petitioner/appellant claimed that as per revised Subsidy Scheme of 1993, he was further entitled to further reduced rate of Rs. 1% simple interest as subsidy. However, the loan amount to the petitioner/appellant was processed under the Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1990 and excess amount of Rs. 99,740/-was credited in his ODA Account No. 2/90 on 21.09.1994, that is after coming into force of Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1993. 17. The respondents had apparently categorically stated that the Central Interest Subsidy Scheme, 1993 remained in force up to March, 1995 and the petitioner/appellant had been granted the benefit of Interest Subsidy Scheme in September, 1994, itself and thereafter, he did not approach the Bank to submit any claim. 18. As submitted, the petitioner/appellant accepted the amount of Rs.99,740/-in the year 1994 itself. Then the scheme lapsed in 1995. Thereafter, it seems as an after thought or belatedly with the hope of corrective measure, he began writing to the Bank after considerable delay, and the Hon'ble Single Judge has also rightly noted that he approached the Court after about 9 years after the amount being credited into his account. 19. Therefore, not only that the petitioner/appellant had himself accepted the amount of Rs. 99,740/-in the year 1994 itself, that is after the 1993 scheme was announced. With the crediting of the amount of Rs. 99,740/-, the petitioner's ODA A/C No. 2/90 was closed, hence indicating finality. His account was closed on 21.09.1994. That he started making very delayed inquires with it seems corrective intent in the year 2000 onwards, hence this is after considerable delay. And he finally files his writ petition after about 9 years. He has also claimed ignorance as a defence for his not being able to take advantage of the 1993 scheme, which would not be a defence in law. 20. And he finally files his writ petition after about 9 years. He has also claimed ignorance as a defence for his not being able to take advantage of the 1993 scheme, which would not be a defence in law. 20. Hence, noting that by accepting the amount the appellant had acquiesced, that his account was closed, that he made delayed inquires and further moved in the writ Court only after about 9 year, and pleaded his ignorance of the scheme, we are not inclined to allow this Letters Patent Appeal and agreeing with the Learned Single Judge, dismiss the appeal. 21. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.