Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The UCO Bank & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4844 of 2021
Decided On : 24-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case involving subsidy and loans. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. unauthorized deductions and orders from banking ombudsman. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioners' claims for adjustments and financial assistance blocked. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments presented by petitioners regarding fund mismanagement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. responses from uco bank regarding linkages to fraudulent activities. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. investigations by cbi and enforcement directorate into the bank fraud. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's observations on evidence and lack of petitioners' involvement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. operational guidelines for subsidy payments and obligations. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. court's findings on unauthorized retention of funds. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. legal position on public duties and obligations under article 226. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. direction for credit transfer and adjustment of subsidy. (Para 32) |
| 12. conclusion of the judgment allowing the writ petition. (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Two proprietorship concerns – [i] M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage; & [ii] M/s Indraprasth Roller Flour Mills – have instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a number of reliefs against the respondent United Commercial Bank [UCO Bank] and the functionaries/officials of the respondent UCO Bank, who have been impleaded as party-respondent no. 1 to party-respondent no. 6 in the writ petition. One Sri Ritesh Kumar Tibrewal is the proprietor of M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage whereas his wife, Smti. Tripti Tibrewal is the proprietor of M/s Indraprasth Roller Flour Mills. M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage was initially a partnership firm where Sri Ritesh Kumar Tibrewal and his mother, Gita Devi Agarwala [since deceased] were partners. After the death of Gita Devi Agarwala, the partnership firm -M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage stood converted to a proprietorship concern.
2. The background facts which are not in dispute, can be mentioned at this stage. In the year 2002, the respondent UCO Bank sanctioned credit facility to the petitioner no. 1, M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage in the form of a Term Loan of Rs.99,64,000/-. The credit facility was extended for construction of a new cold storage by M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage at Tezpur, District – Sonitpur. As a new cold storage was eligible for subsidy under the Government of India [GoI]’s Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, the Government of India [GoI] had granted an amount of Rs.53,32,800/- out of the total Term Loan amount of Rs.99,64,000/-, as subsidy to M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme. By a letter dated 12.03.2002, the Nodal Bank for the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development [NABARD] informed the Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Jorhat [the respondent no. 5] that the Head Office of NABARD had credited the UCO Bank’s current account maintained with the Reserve Bank of India [RBI] with an amount of Rs.26,66,400/- on 11.03.2002 towards 50% advanced subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction of the new cold storage by M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage. Subsequently on 23.12.2002 and on 24.01.2003, amounts of Rs.23,99,800/- and Rs.2,66,600/- respectively were released by the Government of India [GoI] in favour of M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme.
2.1. The facts that a total amount of Rs.53,32,800/-[= Rs.26,66,400/-+ Rs.23,99,800/-+ Rs.2,66,600/-] was received towards subsidy from the Government of India [GoI] under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme for M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage [the petitioner no. 1] against the Term Loan of Rs.99,64,000/- extended to it by the respondent UCO Bank and stood credited in the subsidy account maintained at the Tezpur Branch of the respondent UCO Bank are evident from a Ce
A writ court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a money claim involving disputed questions of facts, if the material facts are not disputed and the claim gets a solid foundation from unequivocal....
Subsidy claims under the Poultry Venture Capital Fund are contingent upon strict adherence to procedural guidelines; failure to comply negates entitlement, especially after scheme closure.
Eligibility for government subsidies under the TUFS scheme cannot be denied due to procedural lapses of the Nodal Bank, upholding the principle that accrued rights must be honored.
Failure to adhere to RBI guidelines in loan disbursement constitutes fraud, leading to contempt for willful defaults and necessitating CBI investigation.
Point of Law-In civil suit when an application is filed under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for joining State Bank of India as necessary party a clear assertion is made with regard to this ....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, respecting the scope of show cause notices, and considering previous findings in subsequent proceedings.
Preventive measures can be applied to freeze accounts during investigations of alleged fraud where sufficient suspicion is present, emphasizing due process rights under Article 300-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
