UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Verma
Special Appeal No. 156 of 2021
RAVINDRA KUMAR PANT – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALMORA & ORS. – Respondent
Decided on : 14.06.2021
Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, Rule 5 – Chapter VIII – Special Appeal – Against order passed by Single Judge – Filed by appellant – By said order, single Judge had directed the matter to be listed after four weeks – It was further directed that ‘pending of this writ petition will not preclude the bank authorities from recovering loan amount – Determination of – High Court was of the considered opinion that order impugned is not a ‘judgment’ within meaning of Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules – Appeal not maintainable – Admittedly, no counter-claim has been filed by respondents – Counter-claim enables to respondent to enforce his claim as an independent action – Impugned order passed by single Judge, to the effect “This writ petition will not preclude bank authorities from recovering loan amount” is not sustainable in eye of law – Noted lines is set aside – Special Appeal disposed of. (Paras 21 to 24)
bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; fu;ekoyh] 1952] fu;e 5 v/;k; VIII & fo’ks”k vihy & ,dy U;k;ewfrZ }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s vkns’k ds fo:) & vihykFkhZ }kjk nkf[ky & mDr vkns’k ds }kjk ,dy U;k;ewfrZ ekeys dks pkj lIrkg i’pkr~ lwphc) fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k Fkk & vkxs ;g Hkh funsZf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd bl ;kfpdk dh fopkjkèkhurk cSad izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks _.k dh /kujkf’k dh olwyh djus ls fuokfjr ugha djsxh & vo/kkj.k & mPp U;k;ky; dh ;g fopkfjr jk; Fkh fd vknsf{kr vkns’k fu;ekoyh ds v/;k; VIII] fu;e 5 ds vFkZ ds v/khu ^^fu.kZ;** ugha gS & vihy iks”k.kh; ugha & LohÑr :i ls] foi{khx.k }kjk dksbZ izfrnkok nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS & izfrnkok foi{kh dks viuk nkok Lora= dk;Z ds :i esa izofrZr djus ds fy, leFkZ djrk gS & ,dy U;k;ewfrZ }kjk bl vk’k; dk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns’k fd ^^;g fjV ;kfpdk cSad izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks _.k dh /kujkf’k dh olwyh djus ls fuokfjr ugha djsxk**] fof/k dh n`f”V esa laèkk;Z.kh; ugha gS & m)fjr iafDr;k¡ vikLr dh tkrh gS & fo’ks”k vihy fuLrkfjrA ¼izLrj 21 ls 24½
JUDGMENT
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma)
Aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 770 of 2021, the appellant has preferred the present Special Appeal. By the said order, the learned Single Judge had directed the matter to be listed after four weeks. It was further directed that “pendency of this writ petition will not preclude the bank authorities from recovering the loan amount."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a cash credit limit/facility was granted in favour of the appellant sometime in 1993. In 2007-08 recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank against the appellant under the provisions of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. An ex parte award, dated 06.01.2010, was passed against the appellant to the tune of Rs. 19,20,841.59/-, along with the litigation cost of Rs. 19,209/-, totalling to Rs. 19,40,050.59/-.
3. The petitioner preferred an application to set aside the aforesaid ex parte award, dated 06.01.2010, which was allowed by order dated 11.03.2010. By order dated 23.04.2013 an award was passed by learned Arbitrator, i.e. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby a decree of Rs. 19,20,841.59/- and litigation cost of Rs. 19,209/-, totalling to Rs. 19,40,050.59/- was passed against the appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2013, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal Uttarakhand, Dehradun, which registered as Appeal 06/2013 titled as “Ravindra Kumar Pant v. Almora Urban Cooperative Bank." By order dated 25.02.2020 the appeal was partially allowed, and N.P.A. date was determined to be 15.01.2001 instead 31.08.2007, and interest was to be calculated at the rate of 7% simple interest annually, and appeal was decreed for recovery of the remaining loan.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 25.02.2020, the appellant preferred a Review Petition before the learned Cooperative Tribunal, Dehradun, under Section 99(B)(1) of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, on the ground that recovery does not state the actual amount due to the petitioner, along with interest thereon. The respondent-bank filed its objections to the said review petition, and the matter is still pending. In the meanwhile, the Tehsildar, Almora issued a recovery citation against the appellant, dated 05.11.2020, to the tune of Rs. 26,19,290/- plus interest plus collection charges.
6. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application, dated 29.01.2021, before the Registrar Cooperative Societies for withdrawal of the certificate, issued under Section 92 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. He further prayed that the District Assistant Registrar, Almora should be directed to withdraw the certificate issued by him, and thereafter communicate to the Collector, Almora, intimating the latter to withdraw the recovery certificate dated 05.11.2020.
7. The appellant also filed an application before Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, under Section 105(2) of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, for grant of sanction for prosecution for offences committed under Section 103 of Uttarakhand Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. It is submitted that while it is the admitted position that the Review Petition preferred by the appellant is still pending, and the amount to be realized is still to be assessed and crystallized, the Secretary/General Manager of the respondent-bank ought not to have given an impression to the officer, officiating as the Assistant District Registrar, Cooperatives, Almora, to issue a recovery certificate to the tune of Rs. 26,19,290/- to be realized from the appellant as arrears of land revenue.
8. Consequent upon the application dated 29.01.2021, the learned Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dehradun, issued show cause notice, dated 30.01.2021, to the Secretary/General Manager of the respondent-bank and the District Assistant Registrar, Almora w
SupremeToday
A petitioner must demonstrate bona fides to receive relief under Article 226 concerning financial recovery matters.
High Court cannot in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the bank to positively consider the benefit of one time settlement to writ petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 41 Rules 11 and 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing for the restoration of an appeal if the appellant was prevente....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of co-operative banks under the APCS Act 1964 and the applicability of the RDB Act 1993.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.