Allahabad High Court
M/S Espee Pharmaceuticals ... vs Managing Director And Chief ... on 20 July, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144883-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23447 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Espee Pharmaceuticals (Chemist And Druggist)
Respondent :- Managing Director And Chief Executive Officer Central Bank Of India And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Brajesh Dubey,Dr. Abhay Kant Upadhyay,Krishna Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Sahab Tiwari
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akhileshh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents-Central Bank of India.
2. The vakalatnama filed by Shri Ashilesh Kumar on behalf of respondents is taken on record.
3. Present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:-
"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to not charge the interest on both the accounts of the petitioner i.e. Cash Credit Account No.1456401064 & Term Loan Emergency Credit Account No.3822019461 and to enhance the credit limit of 40 lakhs and emergency credit to the tune of 8 lakhs without interest at the earliest.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to pay Rs.50 lakhs (Fifty Lakhs) of loss suffered by the petitioner due to transaction loss of banks default and Rs.30 lakhs as consequential loss of dumped/ expired medicines within the stipulated period as may be directed by this Hon'ble Court."
4. This much is reflected from the record that the petitioner is stockiest of several pharma companies and supplying the medicines on behalf of the said companies in the area of District Ballia. The petitioner is current account holder in Central Bank of India, Branch Ballia since 1983. It is regularly conducting the aforesaid account. It is alleged that despite of the bank balance and credit limit in the bank account, more than 12 cheques were bounced since 2012 and the mistakes have been accepted and apologised by the respondent-bank. The respondent bank had stated that the mistake had happened due to system failure and technical problem. It is contended that due to said mistake on the part of the respondent-bank, the petitioner sufferrd huge financial loss and the stock of medicines are also dumped. The pharma companies are also hesitant in supplying the goods and transacting with the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the bank, on the other hand, has raised objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there is contract between the parties and the relief as has been prayed for in this writ petition may not be accorded by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. In contractual matters a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable. The remedy for the aggrieved party would be to either file an ordinary civil suit or if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, to invoke the terms of the agreement. To buttress his contention he has placed reliance on the judgments in Writ-C No.11544 of 2014 (M/S R.S. Associate Thru' Prop. Reeta Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 24.2.2014; Writ-C No.25075 of 2014 (M/s Prabhu Construction Company Through Its Proprietor v. State of U.P. & Anr.) decided on 5.5.2014 and Misc. Bench No.14618 of 2017 (M/s Odyssey Computers through Marketing Manager Sri Ajai Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 7.7.2017. If the petitioner has suffered any financial loss, the petitioner can also invoke the suit proceedings for damages.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the objections made by learned counsel for the bank, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Needless to say, it is always open to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law before the appropriate forum.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Order Date :- 20.7.2023
SP/
