Operative Bank Limited vs Narayan Debnath & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6287 Cal

 10   06.09.
 AG   2022
 M
RKB                               C.O.1741 of 2022
 Ct
07
                  Branch Manager, Nadia District Central Co-
                   operative Bank Limited, Santipur Branch
                                     Vs
                           Narayan Debnath & Ors.


               Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas           ... For the petitioner.

               Mrs. Sohini Chakraborty        ... for the O.P No.1

               Mr. Triptimoy Talukder,
               Mr. Diptomoy Talukder,
               Mr. Abhiraj Tarafdar. ... for the opposite parties.



                    Subject matter of challenge in this revisional

               application is against the order dated 17 th May, 2022

               passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),

               2nd Court, Ranaghat in Money Execution Case being

               No. 1 of 1997, directing Receiver to disburse the

               amount from the account of the judgment-debtor

               (Santipur Co-operative Cold Storage Society Ltd.) in

               favour of the decree-holder.

                    Admittedly,    decree-holder    has   obtained     a

               award amounting to Rs. 10,60,416/- (Ten lakh sixty

               thousand four hundred sixteen) as many as 25 years

               before.

                    The award was put into the execution.

                    The   judgment-debtor       maintained   a     bank

               account with the petitioner's bank, namely Nadia

               District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Santipur
                        2




Branch having account No. 111003820907. A report

was called for from the Branch Manager, Nadia

District Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Santipur

Branch, as to what prevented, the Branch Manager

from disbursing the amount from the account

maintained by the Jdr. in the petitioner's bank.

      A report was submitted thereafter disclosing

the reasons therein, with which the court below was

not satisfied with and appointed a receiver with a

further direction, by the order impugned, to disburse

the     amount    referred   hereinabove           from   the

petitioner's    bank   branch      to   the    decree-holder

deducting the sum from the judgment-debtor's

account.

      Further     admitted   position         is   that   the

petitioner's bank is neither a party to the arbitration,

nor a party to the execution proceeding.

      Learned    advocate    for    the   petitioner/bank

submits that there are certain restrictions imposed

to make a dormant account operative, as per

guideline prescribed by the R.B.I., and the petitioner

bank cannot straightway disburse the amount

without complying with the guidelines of R.B.I 2009

read with notification issued by Government of West

Bengal, Co-operation Department dated 18 th March,

2009.
                        3




     It is further submitted that in due discharge of

the obligation of petitioner/bank, a notice has been

issued to the judgment-debtor asking him to take

appropriate steps for making his dormant account

operative. There is a supervisory body prescribed to

look into the affairs of the petitioner's bank, as per

notification published by the Government of West

Bengal Co-operation Department dated 18 th March,

2009.

     It is contended by the learned advocate for the

petitioner   that   without   adhering   to   the   rules

prescribed by R.B.I, a dormant account thus cannot

be made automatically operative, and for which the

petitioner/ bank cannot be blamed unilaterally.

        It is further submitted by the petitioner/ bank

that bank is ready to disburse the amount, subject

to making due adherence to the rules prescribed by

R.B.I. for making a dormant account operative.

     Incidentally, it is submitted by the learned

advocate for the petitioner that the problems faced

by the bank, and the inability on the part of the

petitioner/ bank to disburse the amount was

brought to the notice of the court below, furnishing

sufficient documents, but that has not been properly

taken care of by the court below.

     Per contra, Mrs. Sohini Chakraborty, learned

advocate appearing for the respondent no.1/decree-

holder disputes with the submission raised by the

petitioner/ bank raising preliminary objection as to

the maintainability of the instant revisional

application.

It is submitted by Mrs. Chakraborty that the

instant application is not maintainable, because

impugned order is appealable one under Order 43

Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It is also submitted by opposite parties that

decree-holder is getting frustrated in spite of having

obtained an award about 25 years before. The

technicalities raised by the petitioner could have

been addressed by the petitioner/ bank itself, but

that has not been exercised by the petitioner/ bank

in the meantime.

Mere issuance of a notice if any, on the part of

the petitioner/ bank upon the judgment-debtor

would not itself exonerate the petitioner/bank from

its liability to make a dormant account operative,

bearing in mind that an arbitral award has already

granted in this case, and the impugned order has

been passed by the court below in connection with a

money execution case.

Having considered the submission of both

sides, it appears that in view of some guidelines

prescribed by the R.B.I. as mentioned hereinabove,

the petitioner/ bank found to difficult to disburse the

amount unilaterally without doing compliance of

such guidelines, in connection with the referred

money execution case.

Instant revisional application is not against the

appointment of Receiver, but purely against the mode

and manner of fastening liability upon

petitioner/bank to disburse money from an account

of Jdr., which has become dormant.

There is some restrictions imposed as per

guidelines prescribed by the R.B.I in 2009, read with

guidelines prescribed for Rashtriya Krishi Vikas

Yojana, vide notification dated 18 th March, 2009,

published by Government of West Bengal Co-

operation Department operative over the field.

Upon perusal of the impugned order, it

appears that there is no reflection in the order

impugned about consideration of the disability or the

difficulties being faced by the petitioner/ bank to

disburse the arbitral award.

In a position like this, the petitioner's bank

may not be unilaterally blamed for disbursing the

proposed amount, from the account of the judgment-

debtor maintained by the petitioner/bank, when

there is some rules prescribed for making dormant

account operative/alive requiring compliance.

The order of making appointment Rreceiver is

not under challenge virtually in this case.

For the discussion made hereinabove, the

order dated 17th May, 2022 passed in Money

Execution Case No. 1 of 1997 of learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), 2nd Court, Ranaghat is set aside,

with a direction upon the court below to hear out the

report afresh submitted by the petitioner/ bank

manager, in context with the 2009 guidelines

prescribed by R.B.I., together with the notification

dated 18th March, 2009 issued by the Government of

West Bengal Co-operation Department, dealing with

money to be spent for implementation of Rashtriya

Krishi Vikas Yojana, within six weeks from the date

of communication of this order, but without granting

unnecessary adjournments, unless it is unavoidable.

In the meantime formalities if there be any, on

the part of the petitioner/ bank may be undertaken,

furnishing a report afresh, before the court below on

the date, to be scheduled by the Court below.

Parties are directed to make communication of

this order to the learned court below.

With this observation and direction, the

revisional application stands disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertakings.

(Subhasis Dasgupta, J)