Allahabad High Court
Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. And ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 July, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 9
Civil Misc. Application No. 163319 of 2014
IN
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43697 of 2011
Petitioner :- Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amarendra Pratap Singh,S. Shekhar,S.P. Singh,V.K. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Prasad,Heera Lal[In Person],Prabhakar Vardhan,S.K. Singh,Siddarth Verma,Vikram D.Chauhan,Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This is an application by respondent No. 5 for modifying the judgment and order of the High Court dated 5th October, 2013, whereby the writ petition was allowed and the order of the Additional Registrar Banking dated 09th June, 2011 was quashed. This application has been made with reference to the observation of the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 4038 of 2014 decided on 11.04.2014 wherein following order was passed:
"Delay condoned.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though they have no serious objection with regard to the order of the Tribunal but the High Court was not right in not relegating the matter to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, after having found the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Banking) Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow was illegal.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that point had been urged before the High Court but was not considered.
In such circumstances, liberty is granted to the petitioner to urge this point before the High Court within a period of three weeks from today, in the even of which the High Court will consider and disposed of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of one month thereafter.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
We have gone through the order of the Division Bench dated 5th October, 2013, and we find that a categorical finding has been recorded that the award of the arbitrator was subject matter of challenge before the Co-operative Appellate Tribunal on an appeal filed by respondent No. 5. The Tribunal upheld the finding of the arbitrator however provided that interest would be chargeable on 'yearly basis' instead of 'three-monthly basis'.
The Bank not being satisfying with the order of the Tribunal directing levying of interest on 'yearly basis' instead of 'three-monthly basis', filed writ petition No. 12972 of 2010 before this Court.
This petition was dismissed under order dated 16.03.2010.
Respondent No. 5 did not file any writ petition against the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, for both the petitioner i.e. the Bank and the respondent No. 5, M/s. Lal & Kumar through Proprietor Hira Lal, the award of the arbitrator, as modified under the appellate order has become final. The rights of the parties stand settled under aforesaid order of the Arbitrator Appellate Tribunal and the High Court.
No further proceedings in that respect would be maintenable nor can be agitated in any parallel proceedings.
What we find is that the Bank after calculating the money in terms of the orders of the Appellate Tribunal found that while records of the Bank reflected on outstanding to the tune of Rs. 25,89,502.41/- against respondent No. 5, the total money, which the bank could recover from respondent No. 5 in terms of the order of Appellate Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court, would be Rs. 10,41, 995/- only. Therefore, in order to make necessary corrections in the accounts of the Bank, as per the circular applicable, the Bank applied to the Additional Registrar (Banking) Co-operative Societies, U.P. Lucknow, to right of the sum of Rs. 15,47,508.41/- the part of dues which the Bank could not recover from respondent No. 5, because of order of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court referred to above.
It is, therefore, clear that the proceedings before the Additional Registrar (Banking) were confined to the issue of righting of this sum of Rs. 15 lacs and odds only on an application of the Bank and nothing further.
We are of the opinion, that the respondent No. 5 had no locus or right to interfere in the application of the Bank for such righting of the balance amount as detailed above, nor the Additional Registrar could have considered any application at the behest of respondent No. 5 so as to issue the directions under the order dated 9th June, 2011. The Division Bench of this Court has set aside the order dated 9th June, 2011 for various reasons. There is no right or locus with respondent No. 5 to seek any further direction for the matter being re-examined at their behest by the Additional Registrar (Banking). Grievance, if any in that regard, can be of the bank only.
There could be a mandamus to the Additional Registrar (Banking) to consider the case/application of the Respondent No. 5 as no such application is legally maintainable before him.
This application is, therefore, rejected.
Order Date :- 10.7.2015
LN Tripathi
(B. Amit Sthalekar,J.) (Arun Tandon,J.)
