9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petition by the Respondent No. 1 for a direction to the Appellant-Bank 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 income-tax 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 Respondents-bank. 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, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit Petitioner having been found correct and the liability having been accepted by the Respondents-bank, it was reduced to an agreement dated 27.05.1990, which is Annexure-5B to the writ application between the parties. The agreement was signed by one and all in presence of the Circle Officer and the overall supervision of the District Magistrate. It was duly recorded in writing that the bank had received the deposit amounting to Rs. 15,03,000/- as per deposits made on 02.08.1989, 04.08.1989 and 04.10.1989. It was also recorded that the total term loan and the liability of the writ Petitioner up to 14.02.1990 came to Rs. 13,386/- only and the amount of Rs. 14,89,614/- of the writ Petitioner would be kept in the Fixed Deposit of the bank and shall be paid with interest by September, 1997. The writ application was filed, when the bank refused to honour this agreement. In support of the writ application, certified copies of the entire proceedings, depositions as had been obtained by the writ Petitioner in the year 1990 were annexed. The Appellant-Bank contested the said writ petition and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and disputed the money clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as tried to cast serious - 7 - doubts about the so-called proceeding having been conducted and even an agreement having been entered into by the parties. It is also urged that the writ application cannot be maintained because the Court can not direct enforcement of an agreement. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate had no power to adjudicate the matter and even if for the sake of argument there was an agreement, the Petitioner ought to have sought its enforcement through common law and not waited for filing the writ application after many a years. It is also urged that these are disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in the writ application. Despite having noticed the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition taken by the Appellant-Bank, the learned single Judge, if we may say so, by a cryptic judgment and order, allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 by observing as follows: 13. The Court has gone through the plethora of documents which have been brought on record in support of the pleading of the Petitioner. If the documents which have been brought on record are read as a whole this Court does get a feeling that the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... natory to the alleged agreement dated 27.5.1990. Similar affidavit of Mr. Krishna Deo Prasad (the then Manager, Branch Office, Haveli Kharagpur) dated 4.9.2009 was filed, taking the same stand. Another affidavit of Mr. Bishnu Deo Prasad Sah (the then District Coordination Officer i.e. the D.C.O.) dated 5.9.2009 was filed, specifically denying the relevant facts and asserting that he was never appointed as an enquiry officer by the District Magistrate, Munger in terms of Misc. Case No. 04 (DW1) PNB/1989-90 and that he was not signatory to the alleged agreement dated 27.5.1990. The Division Bench was also conscious of the express stand taken by the Appellant-Bank before the learned single Judge, raising the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the assertion that the case involved complex factual matters which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment, the Division Bench noted thus: 8. Before the learned Single Judge as is the stand in this appeal, the Bank filed counter affidavit in the writ application raising serious doubt with regard to existence of any case registered as Misc. Case No. 4 (DW 1) PNB/1989-90. They ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ehta, learned senior Counsel being assisted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel accepts the suggestion made by Mr. Sharan and if need be the same can be adverted to after the appearance of other Respondents. There shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment dated 23rd February, 2017 passed by the High Court until further orders. The Appellant-Bank, inter alia, invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate - Mr. Uday Kumar Singh, before this Court in the present appeal, wherein he has reiterated the stand taken by him in the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit dated 5.5.2016 filed before the High Court in compliance of order dated 18.3.2016. In the said affidavit, it had been stated that on perusal of records, reports of different officers and staff and their written depositions, it prima facie appears that the documents pertaining to Misc. Case No. 04 (DW1) PNB/1989-90 (in the office of Anchal Adhikari, H. Kharagpur) are forged and fabricated, as no contemporaneous document was available either in the Sub-Divisional Office, H. Kharagpur or in the headquarters, Kharagpur in that regard. 8. The grievance of the Appellant-Bank is that considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y being miscellaneous case referred to above, wherein statement of the officials of the Bank at the relevant time came to be recorded supporting the plea of the Respondent No. 1 including about the genuineness of the certified copies relied upon, it was a case of admission of liability by the Appellants and the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was, therefore, indisputable. In such a situation, the learned single Judge of the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and the reasons on which stated relief came to be granted commended to the Division Bench. Therefore, no inference by this Court is warranted and moreso, because the Respondent No. 1 has become a victim of circumstances and it would be unfair and unjust to drive him to take recourse to alternative remedy by filing a suit for enforcement of the agreement at this distance of time. The Respondent No. 1, therefore, has urged to dismiss this appeal. 10. We have heard Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. J.S. Attri, learned senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Devashish Bharuka, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 11. From the factual matrix highlighted hitherto, it is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned judgments. The hard facts on record clearly suggested that the Appellant-Bank had supported its plea by relying on affidavits of the concerned Bank officials including the report of the District Magistrate. The learned single Judge very conveniently ignored that aspect and proceeded to hold that the Appellant-Bank was suffering from selective amnesia, having noted that voluminous documents are relied upon by the Respondent No. 1 (writ Petitioner) and thus assumed that the same could not be created or manufactured. 13. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge without analysing the entirety of the stand of the Appellant and the relevant documents, proceeded to make observations about the conduct of the Appellant-Bank, which was certainly avoidable. We say so because, the High Court could not have assumed that the documents produced by the Respondent No. 1 (writ Petitioner) are genuine and admissible, despite the express denial by the Appellant-Bank and its officials on affidavit about being party to the said agreement as alleged. If one reads the stated agreement, it is in the nature of an order passed by some authority, running into almost 20 closely typed pages, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whole, there is no analysis of the relevant documents and in particular, the stand taken by the Appellant-Bank expressly denying the existence of the stated agreement and genuineness thereof, which plea was reinforced from the affidavits of the concerned Bank officials and the report of the District Magistrate. Notably, the District Magistrate in the affidavit filed in compliance of the order dated 18.3.2016 had clearly denied the existence of the stated proceedings for want of contemporaneous official record in that regard. This aspect has not been taken into account by the High Court at all. On facts, therefore, the High Court committed manifest error in disregarding the core jurisdictional issue that the matter on hand involved complex factual aspects, which could not be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 17. The Appellant-Bank has rightly invited our attention to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Thansingh Nathmal (supra). In paragraph 7, the Court dealt with the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following words: 7. ... The jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution is couc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the Petitioner claims a right. And again, in paragraph 9, the Court observed as follows: 9. We therefore hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained. The aggrieved party has the right of going to the civil court for claiming the amount and it is open to the State to raise all possible defences to the claim, defences which cannot, in most cases, be appropriately raised and considered in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. In Smt. Gunwant Kaur (supra) relied upon by the Respondent No. 1, in paragraph 14, the Court observed thus: 14. The High Court observed that they will not determine disputed question of fact in a writ petition. But what facts were in dispute and what were admitted could only be determined after an affidavit in reply was filed by the State. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the petition in limine. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition Under Article 226 merely because in consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction as far as it can be made applicable. The words "as far as it can be made applicable" make it clear that, in applying the various provisions of the Code to proceedings other than those of a suit, the court must take into account the nature of those proceedings and the relief sought. The object of Article 226 is to provide a quick and inexpensive remedy to aggrieved parties. Power has consequently been vested in the High Courts to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any government, within the jurisdiction of the High Court, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. It is plain that if the procedure of a suit had also to be adhered to in the case of writ petitions, the entire purpose of having a quick and inexpensive remedy would be defeated. A writ petition Under Article 226, it needs to be emphasised, is essentially different from a suit and it would be incorrect to assimilate and incorporate the procedure of a suit into the proceedings of a petition Under Article 226. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition Under Article 226 merely beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged and fabricated. It is neither a case of admitted liability nor to proceed against the Appellant Bank on the basis of indisputable facts. 20. Even the decision in ABL International Ltd. (supra) will be of no avail to the Respondent No. 1. This decision has referred to all the earlier decisions and in paragraph 28, the Court observed as follows: 28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs Under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [ (1998) 8 SCC 1]) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
