Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Punjab National Bank & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Versus
Atmanand Singh & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2410-2411 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11603 of 2017)
Decided On : 06-05-2020
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Petition – Maintainability – Matter pertaining to payment of lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement – There is no unanimity between appellant-Bank and respondent No. 1 on relevant facts, on the basis of which relief sought in writ petition was founded – Bank had expressly denied existence of alleged agreement including fact that respondent No. 1 had deposited amount of Rs.14,93,000/ – Case set up by respondent No. 1 in writ petition is neither an admitted position nor is it possible to even remotely suggest that it is indisputable, so as to bind appellant-Bank on that basis – From narration of facts, it is more than clear that it would involve scrutiny of complex matters and issues including about existence of very agreement which is foundational evidence for seeking relief as prayed in writ petition – In that, genuineness and existence of stated agreement has been put in issue by appellant-Bank – Judgment of single Judge has completely glossed over these crucial aspects and writ petition has been disposed of in a very casual manner – Division Bench of High Court committed same error in upholding decision of single Judge – Even if impugned judgments were to be read as a whole, there is no analysis of relevant documents and in particular, stand taken by appellant-Bank expressly denying existence of stated agreement and genuineness thereof – High Court committed manifest error in disregarding core jurisdictional issue that matter on hand involved complex factual aspects, which could not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction – When petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate parties to remedy of a civil suit – Impugned decisions of single Judge and Division Bench set aside and writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 shall stand dismissed with liberty to respondent No. 1 to take recourse to other alternative remedy as may be permissible in law. (Paras 11, 15, 16, 17 and 23)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna1 in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case. Appellant-Bank contested the said writ petition and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and disputed the money claim set up by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of alleged contractual agreement dated 27.5.1990.
Findings of the Court:
A priori, we have no hesitation in taking the view that in the facts of the present case, the High Court should have been loath to entertain the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and should have relegated the respondent No. 1 to appropriate remedy for adjudication of all contentious issues between parties.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna [For short, “the High Court”] in Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 310/2009, whereby, the LPA filed by the appellants came to be dismissed while affirming the decision of the learned single Judge, dated 10.2.2009 in allowing the Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 867/1999.
3. The Division Bench took note of the relevant background facts necessitating filing of writ petition by the respondent No. 1 for a direction to the appellantBank to pay his lawful admitted claims in terms of agreement dated 27.5.1990 (Annexure 5(b) appended to the writ petition) and also to deposit the incometax papers with immediate effect. The Division Bench has noted as follows:
“4. The facts of the case is that the writ petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs.10,000/ from the Bank by way of financial assistance to run a business in the name of “Sanjeev Readymade Store” from Haveli Kharagpur Branch of Punjab National Bank in the district of Munger. The writ petitioner was paid the said sum of Rs.10,000/ in two instalments of Rs.4,000/ on 21.07.1984 and Rs.6,000/ on 01.10.1984. The writ petitioner had yet another savings account in the same branch of the respondentsbank. However, on 14.02.1990, the term loan with interest had mounted upto a figure of Rs.13,386/. In 1989, the writ petitioner, who is Respondent no. 2 in the appeal, was granted two cheques of Rs.5,000/ each by the Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur under the Earthquake Relief Fund. The said two cheques were deposited with the Bank for encashment in the other savings account, but instead, were transferred to the loan account. This was done without any authorization of the writ petitioner and without direction of any competent authority. Some time thereafter, the writ petitioner’s son was afflicted by cancer, which required immediate treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. In order to meet the expenses of the treatment, writ petitioner sold 406 bhars of gold jewellery of his wife’s “stridhan” and received Rs.14,93,268/. He approached the branch of the respondentsbank with a sum of Rs.14,93,000/ on 04.08.1989 for issuance of two bank drafts, one in his name and the another in the name of his wife. The then Accountant, Mr. T.K. Palit showed his inability to prepare the drafts on the ground of shortage of staff on that day and requested the writ petitioner to deposit the amount in the savings account No. 1020 in the said branch. The Accountant, after receipt of the money, transferred total amount of Rs.15,03,000/ to the loan account, whereas in the loan account upto 14.02.1990 outstanding dues of principal and interest was only Rs.13,386/. The writ petition made grievance before the Branch Manager of the said branch and also filed representations before the Bank authorities. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Sri Nanhe Prasad, who ordered the then Circle Officer, Haveli Kharagpur, District Munger, Sri Binod Kumar Singh to make a detailed enquiry into the matter and report. Accordingly, a Misc. Case No. 4 (DW 1) PNB/198990 was initiated and in those proceedings, various officials of the Punjab National Bank, including the then Branch Manager, District Coordination Officer of the Punjab National Bank and the Accountant of the Bank were examined from time to time and reports were submitted to the District Magistrate, Munger. Several witnesses were examined even by the District Magistrate, Munger. There were officers from the Regional Office of the Punjab National Bank, one of them being Sri Tej Narain Singh, the Regional Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, PatnaB also deposed making reference of what had transpired to the Zonal Office of the Bank. On the basis of these statements, which were recorded by the Circle Officer a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
