Punjab National Bank vs Sh. Gian Prakash & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 6187 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CM(M) 1051/2014

%                                                        26th November, 2014

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                                           ......Petitioner
                 Through:                Mr.Sanjeev Narula with Mr.Ajay
                                         Kalra, Advocates.

                          VERSUS

SH. GIAN PRAKASH & ORS.                                       ...... Respondents

                  Through:               Mr.Dheeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate for
                                         R- 1 to 3 with R-2 in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?                   Yes


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Caveat No.1050/2014

      Since    appearance     has   been     put    in     on   behalf     of    the

respondents/caveators, caveat stands discharged.

CM(M) 1051/2014 & C.M.Nos.19494/2014 (Stay),19495/2014 (Exemption)

1. Some officers of public sector banks in this country such as of the

petitioner/Punjab National Bank (in short 'the Bank') in this case, it is seen

that they can go to any extent in causing a perverse reading of the applicable

circulars and guidelines issued by the Bank itself. Why this is done is not

understood by this Court, but, the same surely besides causing a grave

harassment to the customers of the bank, in fact in the facts of this case

reflects an endeavour to over-reach the court's process. Possibly, even

contempt action can and should be initiated by either the concerned court

below or by the beneficiary of the Fixed Deposit (FD) in this case on

account of the actions of the petitioner/Bank. The reasons for making the

aforesaid observations are given hereinafter.

2. The facts of the case are that in the subject suit which was pending in

the district court, one Sh.Kishan Chand Sharma was asked by the court to

deposit an amount of Rs.30,35,000/- in the shape of an FDR in the name of

the court. This was to be done by Sh.Kishan Chand Sharma pursuant to the

order dated 18.1.2002. Pursuant to this order dated 18.1.2002, FDR of the

petitioner/Bank in the name of the court was prepared vide FDR No.SFC

824464 dated 22.1.2002. Though the order did not specify the period for

which the FDR was to be made, the officer of the petitioner/Bank on his own

decided to make the FDR for a period of three years. The period of three

years expired on 22.1.2005, and the issue is that whether the petitioner/Bank

is thereafter liable to pay only simple interest to the beneficiary of the FD or

the FD is to be renewed and the petitioner/Bank cannot take up a stand that it

is only liable to pay simple interest.

3. It is also necessary and relevant to state that when the FD was to be

encashed with respect to the total amount payable thereunder including

interest up-to-date, the petitioner/Bank originally filed a Statement of

Account stating that as on 22.1.2013, a sum of Rs.69,14,155/- was payable.

Thereafter, the petitioner/Bank did a volte-face and claimed that the amount

of Rs.69,14,155/- was not payable but only the amount of Rs.45,95,414 was

payable. It is this stand of the petitioner/Bank which has been decided by

the impugned order holding that the petitioner/Bank cannot play a game with

the court and the Bank was bound to pay the fixed deposit rate of interest

and not the simple interest payable on savings bank accounts.

4. The impugned order of the trial court gives the following reasons for

holding that the petitioner/Bank is liable to pay interest payable on fixed

deposit till the time the same is encashed:-

(i) The FD was given to the court and in the name of the court, and

therefore why the officer of the petitioner/Bank made the FD only for three

years and not for a larger number of years is not explained, and, if the FDR

was only to be for three years, then why there was no automatic renewal

term found to be explained by the petitioner/Bank.

(ii) Not only the FD was made by the Bank suo moto for a period of three

years, thereafter at the expiry of period of three years there was no

communication of the bank either with the Court or with any of the parties to

the suit as to whether or not the FD should be renewed or not or the amount

should be taken as an amount in a savings bank account.

(iii) Reliance placed by the petitioner/Bank upon its circulars dated

10.12.2008, 13.4.2011, 20.04.2011 etc. is misconceived because those

circulars in fact go against the petitioner/Bank, inasmuch as, those circulars

require the petitioner/Bank in case of an inoperative account to firstly send

the communication to the FD account holder. Thereafter, if no information

is received even after communication to the FD account holder is sent, the

petitioner/Bank has been mandated to try to communicate with the customer

telephonically, via e-mail etc etc. After all this is done and sufficient efforts

are made, only thereafter the petitioner/Bank can claim that it is liable to pay

simple interest payable on bank deposits and not otherwise. In the facts of

the present case, the admitted case of the petitioner/Bank is that no efforts

were made whatsoever by the petitioner/Bank to get in touch with the court

in whose name the FD was prepared as to whether the FD should be

renewed or not or whether the amount of the FD should be put in a savings

bank account deposit.

5. I completely agree with the observations of the trial court. Counsel

for the petitioner/Bank had no answer when asked to show as to what was

the communication which was given by the petitioner/Bank to the court in

whose name the FD was prepared, and whether the petitioner/Bank after

expiry of the period of three years which ended on 22.1.2005 communicated

in which form with the court as to whether the FD is or is not to be renewed.

The petitioner/Bank also did not contact in any manner even any of the

parties to the suit with respect to the issue of renewal of the FD or otherwise.

Therefore, the trial court has rightly held that the petitioner/Bank cannot

place reliance upon its circulars and guidelines as stated above.

6. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the

judgment in the case of Bank of India Vs. Nangia Constructions (I) Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors. 2008 (7) SCC 290 has held that the bank gives bank guarantees

pursuant to the court cases, and if they are not renewed by the customer for

non-payment of renewal charges, the bank guarantee inspite of non-renewal

continues to be extendable and valid till enforced. The Supreme Court has

also held that people's confidence in business transactions depends on the

credibility of the nationalized banks, and which will be shaken in case the

banks start dishonouring their commitments by adopting subterfuges.

7. In the present case, the action of the petitioner/Bank is condemnable

to say the least besides the petitioner/Bank in my opinion being possibly

guilty of contempt of court, and with respect to which I need not to say

further because that will depend upon the concerned court or any of the party

who has been harassed. However, one thing is writ large that certain officers

of the petitioner/Bank think that they are above the law and they can seek to

get away with their most malafide and illegal actions. This is totally

unacceptable to say the least.

8. In view of the above, though while dismissing this petition with costs

of Rs.30,000/- in favour of respondent no.2 who is one of the beneficiaries

of the FD, let a copy of this order be placed before the Board of Directors of

the petitioner/Bank for the Board of Directors of the petitioner/Bank to know

as to how certain officers of the petitioner/Bank are acting in a most gross

and malafide manner thereby seeking to over-reach the court processes.

Copy of this order be also sent to the Finance Secretary and also the Finance

Minister by the registry of this Court through special messenger for the

Authorities to take notice and accordingly to take necessary actions against

the petitioner/Bank and its those offices who have caused undue harassment

to the beneficiary of the FD in this case. Copy of this order be also sent by

the registry of this Court to the concerned authority in the Reserve Bank of

India with respect to the actions of the petitioner/Bank. Even the

petitioner/Bank itself besides placing a copy of this order before the Board

of Directors will also send a copy of this order to the Reserve Bank of India

and the petitioner/Bank will file an affidavit of the compliance of the terms

of the present order in this Court within a period of four weeks from today,

and in case the petitioner/Bank fails to comply with the same, the respondent

no.2 can bring the same to the notice of this Court by filing an appropriate

application.

9. The petition is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 26, 2014 KA