M/S Anjani Impex vs General Manager Canara Bank
2024 Latest Caselaw 1212 Guj

Gujarat High Court

M/S Anjani Impex vs General Manager Canara Bank on 12 February, 2024

Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen

Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen

                                                                                       NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/2219/2024                                    ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

                                                                                        undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2219 of 2024
==========================================================
                             M/S ANJANI IMPEX
                                  Versus
                       GENERAL MANAGER CANARA BANK
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR BALRAM D JAIN(3146) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                  Date : 12/02/2024
                   ORAL ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to indicate as to in which branch the amount of the petitioner is credited in the account of the petitioner, which, already was transferred from the State Bank of Mauritius in the year 2016. The petitioner also prays for direction to the respondent Bank to furnish the details, bank statements of the amount transferred from Mauritius and credited in the account of the petitioner.

2. Mr. Balram Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Canara Bank and therefore, has approached the District Consumer Forum raising the grievance under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1986"). The said complaint was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2018. It is submitted that instead of filing appeal before the higher forum, the petitioner, has filed writ petition before this Court. The matter, was dismissed for want of prosecution. Restoration application was filed, however, there occurred a delay of 412 days in filing the restoration

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2219/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

application. This Court was not inclined to condone the delay and hence, the restoration application was rejected. Letters Patent Appeal, was filed against the said order; wherein also, there was a delay. The said application was listed for hearing before this Court and this Court, has dismissed the civil application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that the petitioner, has approached the learned advocate and the learned advocate, suggested to challenge the said order before the higher forum or to file a fresh writ petition before this Court for the very same cause. As per the instructions received, that the captioned writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent bank seeking above referred prayers.

3. Heard Mr. Balram Jain, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner.

4. Discernibly, the grievance of the petitioner, is the alleged illegality committed by the respondent no. 2 bank by not transferring the amount of US $ 14305.52 to the present petitioner since the year 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that the said amount, is already transferred to the respondent bank by the State Bank of Mauritius. As per the averments made in the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has exported textile goods to one M/s. Sunil Jayantilal Damaniya having its office at Mauritius and the said export was operated through the current account of the petitioner with the respondent no. 2 bank. It appears that the petitioner was in receipt of the notice by the respondent no.2 to pay the bank dues in respect of the business transactions which, was responded to by the petitioner explaining as to why and how the petitioner is not liable to pay the dues which the petitioner has never incurred.

                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/2219/2024                               ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

                                                                                   undefined

Averment is also made that the petitioner alongwith the learned Advocate has visited Mauritius and has incurred expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the said visit. During the visit, the buyer, has confirmed that it had already paid the amount to the petitioner which, was deposited in the respondent no. 2 bank. However, it is the grievance that the respondent neither credited the amount nor deposited in the account of the petitioner. In the year 2018, the petitioner, had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum at Surat under the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the same, was registered as consumer case no. 3 of 2017. The complaint came to be dismissed by the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 on the ground that the petitioner is not a consumer.

5. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court by filing a writ petition being R/ Special Civil Application No. 14335 of 2018. Owing to the office objections raised, the petitioner was obliged to submit the copy of the judgment passed by the learned Consumer Forum which, the petitioner could not produce in time and therefore, the petition was dismissed for want of non-removal of office objections. Restoration application was filed together with Civil Application seeking condonation of delay of 412 days. Coordinate bench of this Court has passed an order dated 05.08.2022 whereby the application for condonation of delay, was found to be devoid of merits. Paragraph no.2 of the said order reads thus:

"2. Necessary averments for condonation of delay are made in para 4 of the application, which is reproduced hereunder:-

"As the trial Court Advocate could not supplied the judgment of Consumer Forum, Surat and therefore, the Ld. Advocate could not comply order dated 18.9.2018 and 24.9.2018 and this Hon'ble Court had given further time to comply the aforesaid order on or

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2219/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

before 10.10.2018 by order dated 1.10.2018. In spite of the aforesaid directions and sufficient opportunities given to the applicant, the document could not be produced within given time and therefore, the matter became dismissed for non-compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court and there is also delay in 412 days in filing the restoration application which may be condoned in the interest of justice.

6. As this Court was not inclined to condone the delay of 412 days caused in filing the restoration application, the application was rejected. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner preferred F/Letters Patent Appeal No. 35609 of 2022 together with the Civil Application (for condonation of delay) no. 1442 of 2023. There occurred a delay of 44 days. The application came to be rejected. The order reads thus:

"1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The present appeal is delayed by 44 days in challenging the order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. Though we are not convinced with the explanation offered by learned counsel for the appellant to explain for the delay in filing the instant appeal, however entering into the merits of the judgment and order dated 05.08.2022, we may record that by the said order, the restoration application filed by the appellant herein with the delay of 412 days was rejected as the Court was not convinced to condone the delay on the explanation offered therein. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the explanation offered by the appellant in the application for restoration was such as it could not have been rejected by the learned Single Judge, for the reason that the copy of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, Surat, as was directed to be produced by the learned Single Judge, was not relevant to decide the controversy at the end.

2. We are afraid to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the same reason that the challenge before us is to the order of the dismissal of the restoration application. The order of dismissal of the writ petition is not subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. A perusal of the restoration application indicates that the applicant has only stated that since the copy of the judgment of the Consumer Forum, Surat, was not provided to him, by the trial court advocate, the same could not be given to the counsel appearing for the writ court. The said explanation cannot be treated as sufficient. No infirmity could be found in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeal is dismissed being misconceived both on the ground of delay

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/2219/2024 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

undefined

as well as on merits.

3. The oral request made by the learned counsel for the appellant for suspension of this order is hereby rejected."

7. After the rejection, the petitioner, has once again filed the captioned writ petition. When the Court confronted the learned Advocate to point out as to how the petition, with this prayer, would be permissible? Reply given was, that since the matter was dismissed on technical ground and not on merits, the captioned writ petition would be maintainable. In the opinion of this Court, there lies a fallacy.

8. The petitioner so also the learned Advocate were under an erroneous impression that the petition was dismissed on a technical ground and not on merits. The said stand taken is misconceived for, in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the letters patent appeal, the Division Bench has in para. 2 of the above referred order, specifically observed that the present appeal is dismissed being misconceived both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Therefore, when the delay was not condoned, in Misc. Civil Application (for restoration) and the Civil Application for delay was also dismissed by the Division Bench, it is difficult to accept as to how the captioned writ petition can be filed once again. Filing of the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed with a cost of Rs.25000/- to be paid to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/2219/2024                           ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024

                                                                                undefined

9. At this stage, Mr. Jain, learned Advocate has submitted that cost may not be imposed; however, considering the conduct of the petitioner and the time consumed by this Court, this Court deems it fit that the petition be dismissed with cost. The request stands rejected.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) SINDHU NAIR