Bombay High Court
Shri Samartha Sahakari Patpedhi ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 22 July, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 2041.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2041 OF 2013
Shri Samarth Sahakari Pathpedhi Ltd.,
Dhule, 1199, Shri Samartha Bhavan
First Floor, Nagarpatti, Dhule,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Shri Sachin Suresh Kulkarni
Age - Major, Occu. Service,
R/o C/o Shri Samartha Sahakari
Patpedhi Ltd., Dhule, 1199, Shri
Samartha Bhavan, First Floor,
Nagarpatti, Dhule. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Cooperation and Marketing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Commissioner of Cooperation and
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3. The Additional Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State,
Pune.
4. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation, Head Office,
Reserve Bank of India Building,
2nd Floor, Opp. Bombay Central
Railway Station, Mumbai,
Through its General Manager.
::: Uploaded on - 26/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 23:43:59 :::
2 wp 2041.13
5. Shri P. K. Anna Patil Janta Sahkari
Bank Ltd., Taloda Road, Nandurbar,
Dist. Nandurbar,
Through its Liquidator.
6. The Satpuda Tapi Parisar Sahkari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
Purushottam Nagar, Taluka Shahad,
Dist. Dhule,
Through its Chairman. .. Respondents
Shri R. L. Kute, Advocate h/f Shri N. B. Suryawanshi, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Shri N. B. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. V. Adwant, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
Shri N. R. Bhavar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5.
Shri P. P. Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 22ND JULY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
. Mr. Kute, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the petitioner has kept fixed deposit with the respondent
No. 5 of an amount of Rs. 6,68,00,000/-. The said fixed deposit
had the maturity value of Rs. 8,09,49,755/-. The respondent No.
5/bank subsequently went into liquidation. A meeting was held
and it was decided to enter into a tripartite agreement between
the petitioner, the respondent No. 5/bank and the respondent No.
6/karkhana. As per the said tripartite agreement it was decided
that, the matured amount of Rs. 8,09,49,755/- be transferred to
3 wp 2041.13
the respondent No. 6/Karkhana, which will be treated as fixed
deposit of the petitioner with the respondent No. 6/karkhana and
the same shall earn simple interest of 7% per annum. The
agreement was forwarded for approval to the respondent No. 2.
The respondent No. 2 ignoring the interest of the parties, refused
to grant approval to the tripartite agreement, as such the
present writ petition is filed. Even the respondent No. 5 made a
request with the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation (for short "D.I.C.G.C.") for transferring the deposit
of amount of the petitioner to the loan account of the respondent
No. 6. The D.I.C.G.C. rejected the said request of the respondent
No. 5. The said order is also assailed.
2. Mr. Kute, the learned counsel further submits that, the
petitioner is a credit society, so also the respondent Nos. 5 and 6
are co-operative societies. The tripartite agreement is in the
interest of all the three parties to the agreement. The loan
amount of the respondent No. 6 with the respondent No. 5 would
get cleared and the amount of the petitioner also would be saved
with the respondent No. 6 who would pay the amount to the
petitioner with interest at the rate of 7% per annum simple
interest. The authorities failed to consider said aspect in its
correct perspective. The authorities ought to have safeguarded
interest of the depositor. The approach of the respondents while
passing the impugned order is irrational and unreasonable. The
4 wp 2041.13
very object of the establishment of the respondent No.
4/corporation is defeated.
3. Mr. Bhavar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5
submits that, it would not be feasible to accept the request of the
petitioner in view of the letter of D.I.C.G.C. and the scheme of
the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act,
1961 (for short "D.I.C.G.C. Act') and more particularly Sec. 21 of
the said Act.
4. Mr. Adwant, the learned counsel for the respondent No.
4/Corporation submits that, such an agreement is impermissible
in law. The respondent No. 4/corporation has settled the total
claim for an amount of Rs. 56,60,73,605.63. The respondent No.
4/corporation is yet to receive an amount of Rs. 51,48,72,598.87
from the liquidator. As per Sec. 21 of the D.I.C.G.C. Act read
with regulation 27 of the D.I.C.G.C. General Regulation 1961
apart from the amount refunded by the liquidator as undisbursed
claim amount, the payment of any amount as set off or
adjustment would be contrary to the provisions of the D.I.C.G.C.
Act read with its regulation. The learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deposit Insurance
and Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs. Ragupathi
Ragavan and others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 629.
5 wp 2041.13
5. We have considered the submissions. The fact that, the
respondent No. 5 is liquidated is not disputed. It also appears
from the affidavit filed by the Corporation that, it has settled the
claims and now has to receive more than Rs. 51 crores from the
respondent No. 5. The private agreement between the parties,
though earlier to liquidation, but now after the bank has gone
under liquidation and the claims are settled by the D.I.C.G.C.
would be contrary to the letter and spirit of Sec. 21 of the
D.I.C.G.C. Act. The Apex Court in the case of Deposit
Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs.
Ragupathi Ragavan and others referred to supra has that :
"30. Even if one looks at the entire
issue from different point of view,
one would believe that all the depositors
have by and large equal right. If the
amount deposited is less than Rs.1 lakh,
each depositor gets the amount in full,
but if the deposit is exceeding Rs.1
lakh, then only the amount which is
in excess of Rs.1 lakh may not be given
to the depositor, unless the bank in
liquidation is having sufficient funds
which can be given to all on pro-rata
basis after providing for expenditure
in the liquidation proceedings and
after repaying the amount to the
Corporation as per the provisions of
the Act. The Act in a way guarantees
repayment of Rs.1 lakh to each
depositor. The High Court or any other
authority has no power to direct
payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by
ignoring statutory provisions of the
Act and the Regulations made thereunder."
6 wp 2041.13
6. The private adjustment sought to be made would not be
commensurate with the object of D.I.C.G.C. Act. Even otherwise,
now the bank has already gone into liquidation. The position at
the relevant time when the tripartite agreement was entered
into was different after the bank has gone into liquidation. The
claims are settled by the D.I.C.G.C. Naturally, the prayer made
by the petitioner would in a way not survive and would become
redundant and no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
7. Considering the above, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Rule discharged.
Sd/- Sd/-
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/July 16
