Calcutta High Court
Basu House Pvt. Ltd vs Indian Overseas Bank And Ors on 30 August, 2023
ORDER OD - 1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
APO/18/2014
WITH
WPO/59/2013
BASU HOUSE PVT. LTD.
VERSUS
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY
Date : 30th August 2023.
Appearance:
Mr. Shyamal Chakraborti, Advocate
Ms. Manju Jaiswal, Advocate
Mr. Sayan Ghosh, Advocate
.... for appellant.
Mr. Sudeep Pal Choudhuri, Advocate
... for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3.
Ms. Suchishmita Ghosh Chatterjee, Advocate
... for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6.
THE COURT:- The appellant has come up with the present
appeal challenging the order dated 20th September 2013 made in
WPO/59/2023. The appellant filed the above writ petition for a direction
to the respondents 4 to 6 to revoke and/or cancel the
authorization/licence given to the first respondent to run the branch office
at "Basu House" at 3, Chowringhee Approach, Kolkata - 700072.
According to the appellant, the lease granted to the first respondent has
expired as early as on 30th September 2002 and the first respondent is not
entitled to run the branch office in the said address.
The learned senior counsel who appeared before the Learned Single
Judge relied on the letter/circular dated 21.08.2008 issued by the fourth
respondent. The learned senior counsel referring extensively to the said
circular contended that when there is a dispute with regard to lease of the
premises, the fourth respondent has to cancel or withdraw the licence
granted to the first respondent to run the branch office in disputed
premises. The learned senior counsel also relied on the judgments
reported in (2002) 1 SCC 367 [Central Bank of India v. Ravindra], AIR
2005 Calcutta 21 [Eastern Paper Mill Machineryy Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of
Inida] and AIR 2007 Calcutta 241 [Ruia Cotex Ltd. v. Corporation Bank].
The Learned Judge considering the materials placed before him came
to the finding that the appellant is trying to resolve landlord-tenant
dispute by way of the writ petition and the guideline contained in the
letter/circular dated 21.08.2008 is directory in nature and not mandatory.
When there is a dispute with regard to the lease of the property, the fourth
respondent has discretion to consider the same and pass orders. The
Learned Single Judge distinguished the judgments relied on by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner before him and held that
the facts of the said judgments are different from the facts of the present
writ petition and dismissed the writ petition.
Against the said order of dismissal, the appellant has come up in the
present writ appeal.
The leaned counsel appearing for the appellant raised various
grounds in the memo of appeal and reiterated the averments made in the
writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the very
same judgments referred to by the learned senior counsel before the
Learned Single Judge as well an unreported decision of the Delhi High
Court in WP(C) 7505/2013 & CM Apeal 16064/2013 [M/s. Holystar
Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Unioin of India & Anr.] and made
very same submissions. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the conditions mentioned in the letter/circular dated
21.08.2008 are mandatory and the Learned Judge erred in holding that
they are only directory. The conditions mentioned therein are guidelines as
per the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and are binding
on the respondent nos. 4 to 6. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Learned Judge erred in holding that the appellant is trying
to evict the first respondent from the premises. The appellant in the writ
petition is seeking only cancellation of the licence granted to the first
respondent to run the branch office and not for eviction and prayed for
setting aside the order of the Learned Single Judge and allowing the
appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 made
submission in support of the order of the Learned Single Judge and prayed
for dismissal of appeal.
Ms. Suchishmita Ghosh Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 4 to 6 extensively referred to the order of the Learned Single
Judge and submitted that only if there is any violation of ingredients of
Section 22(4) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, the RBI cancels the
licence given to the banking companies. The letter/circular dated
21.08.2008 does not have any statutory force. If banking operations are
stopped by canceling the licence, the public interest will be affected. The
learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 relied on the judgment reported
in (2004) 3 SCC 415 [Pramod Malhotra and Others v. Union of India and
Others] and submitted that RBI cannot easily close down the banking
companies merely because there are certain irregularities. They have to
keep in mind the implications of closing a bank or financial institution.
The closing of a bank or a financial institution has its impact not just on
that bank or financial institution, its customers and debtors but also on
the future of financial services in that region.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the
respondents and perused the entire materials on record.
From the materials on record it is seen that according to the
appellant, the lease in respect of the premises where the first respondent is
running the branch office has expired as early as on 30th September 2002.
No material was placed before the learned Single Judge till 2013 when the
present writ petition is filed or before this Court to the effect that any
action has been taken by the appellant upon expiry of the lease. Once the
tenancy is admitted, it is always open to the landlord to take steps before
the competent court to evict the tenant (first respondent herein) from the
premises. The Learned Single Judge considering the materials placed
before him has rightly held that the appellant is trying to evict the first
respondent in the guise of cancellation of licence given to the first
respondent to run the branch office in the premises. The contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant in the appeal that the appellant is not
seeking for an order to evict the first respondent from the premises but is
seeking only to cancel the licence given by the RBI to the first respondent
to run the branch office in the said premises is not acceptable in the facts
and circumstances. Further, the Learned Judge has rightly held that the
guideline issued in the letter/circular dated 21.08.2008 is only directory
and not mandatory and the respondents 4 to 6 have discretion to consider
the disputed lease and take action. The judgments relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant relate to Sections 21 and 35A of the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949 under which the RBI issues master
circulars. The said judgments are not applicable in the facts of the present
case to set aside the disputed lease. The Learned Judge considered all the
materials placed before him and rightly dismissed the writ petition. There
is no error in the order of the learned Judge warranting interference by
this Court.
For the above reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
(V.M. VELUMANI, J.)
(RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)
s. kumar
