Gujarat High Court
Vipul Shashikant Patwa vs The Bhuj Mercantile Co-Op Bank Ltd on 17 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4808 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4808 of 2025
==========================================================
VIPUL SHASHIKANT PATWA
Versus
THE BHUJ MERCANTILE CO-OP BANK LTD. & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NAVALDAN R LANGA(2943) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 17/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition impugns the judgment and order
dated 20.1.2025 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad ('the State Commission'
for sake of brevity) whereby the learned State Commission has
allowed the Revision Petition No.12 of 2024 preferred by the
respondent Bank and set aside the order dated 10.7.2024
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission ('the District Commission' for sake of brevity).
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner holds a
current account with the respondent Bank. He had joined with
the Deposit Scheme named 'Unicorn Deposit' floated by the
respondent Bank. As per the said deposit scheme, when the
credit balance in a depositor's account crosses Rs.1 lac, the
excess amount in multiple of Rs.1 lac was to be transferred to
the 'Unicorn Deposit', which would earn interest at the rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
term deposit as prescribed by the Bank. Since the Bank was
facing some trouble, the Reserve Bank of India imposed certain
restrictions in respect of the business of the respondent Bank
from 2.4.2012 to 27.1.2014. It is further the case of the
petitioner that without informing the petitioner, the petitioner's
amount lying in 'Unicorn Deposit' came to be prematurely paid
up to the petitioner's current account which was not earning
any interest. It is the case of the petitioner that this act of the
respondent- Bank is unauthorized, illegal and unjust since the
Reserve Bank of India despite by putting restrictions had
permitted the respondent Bank to continue the renewal of any
deposit with it. That the petitioner's deposit was under the
permitted category of the deposit and, therefore, the act of the
respondent Bank in discontinuing the said deposit amounted to
deficiency of service. That thereafter, the petitioner raised a
complaint and also sought mediation of the Reserve Bank of
India in his case. By the communication dated 25.5.2016, the
Reserve Bank of India instructed the respondent Bank to
carefully examine the petitioner's case and take appropriate
action to close the complaint. That the respondent Bank has
ignored the said direction of the Reserve Bank of India for a
period of six years and on 31.5.2022, the respondent Bank
communicated to the petitioner denying him his rightful claim.
That on 31.5.2022, the cause of action arose for the first time
since the respondent Bank denied to pay interest claimed. That
the communication dated 31.5.2022 is the only evidence which
the petitioner has in support of his complaint case. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
petitioner therefore, filed the Complaint No.219 of 2024 before
the District Commission along with MA/4/2024 being application
for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. That by a
reasoned order dated 10.7.2024, the learned District
Commission has allowed the delay condonation application.
Aggrieved, the respondent Bank challenged the said order dated
10.7.2024 before the learned State Commission by filing
Revision Petition No.12 of 2024. That by the impugned order
dated 20.1.2025, the learned State Commission has set aside
the order dated 10.7.2024 passed by the learned District
Commission and rejected the delay condonation application of
the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned State Commission has failed to consider that the
sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner. He submits that
the cause of action arose on 31.5.2022 when the petitioner
received the communication from the respondent Bank refusing/
denying the payment of interest on the deposit made by the
petitioner. He submits that this communication was a final
denial by the respondent Bank to pay interest on the rightful
amount of the petitioner. He submits that the learned District
Commission had considered all the factors while deciding the
application for condonation of delay and had passed an
equitable order. He submits that the learned State Commission
did not consider that the petitioner was unable to approach any
legal forum and establish his right as the denial of non-payment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
of interest was communicated to him only on 31.5.2022. He
submits that the learned State Commission ought to have
considered that the petitioner had spent considerable time in
pursuing the respondent Bank and in seeking mediation of the
Reserve Bank of India and the time taken in pursuing the
respondents ought to have been excluded from the delay as
caused in filing the complaint case. The learned counsel submits
that the petitioner was vigilant of his right and was pursuing the
matter with the respondent Bank as well as the Reserve Bank of
India and despite receiving the instructions from the Reserve
Bank of India, the respondent Bank had remained non-
communicative for six years. He submits that the learned State
Commission ought to have also excluded the time during which
the Covid-19 Pandemic was prevalent. Learned counsel further
submits that since the respondent Bank did not provide any
relevant documents and the petitioner was trying to obtain the
same, there was some delay. He submits that the petitioner has
suffered continuous loss of interest on the amount lying in the
current account which should be treated as continuous financial
injury and no period of limitation was applicable in the present
case. Even then out of caution, the petitioner had preferred the
application for condonation of delay. He,therefore, submits that
the present writ petition be allowed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, considered
his submissions and perused the documents on record.
5. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
for condonation of delay has been filed seeking to condone the
delay of more than 7 years and 9 months. The averments in the
delay condonation application show that the petitioner has made
communications by way of letters to the respondent Bank for
such a long period and that the petitioner had made a complaint
to the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2016, pursuant to which
the Reserve Bank of India by communication dated 25.5.2016
had instructed the respondent Bank to examine the petitioner's
case and take appropriate action to close the complaint.
Thereafter, the petitioner has not taken any legal recourse and
has persisted in communicating with the respondent Bank.
6. A perusal of the order dated 10.7.2024 passed by the
learned District Commission in MA No.04 of 2024 shows that
the learned Commission has held that the continuous
communication by the petitioner to the respondent Bank from
2014 till 2022 was held to be a sufficient cause and the denial of
interest by the Bank by the communication dated 31.5.2022 was
considered to be a cause of action for allowing the application
for condoning the delay of 7 years and 9 months.
7. The learned State Commission in the impugned order has
observed thus:-
"12. Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the respective
parties and having gone through the material on record and the
submissions made in aforementioned context few circumstances
are eloquent enough to indicate hereinafter.
Undisputedly the bank floated Unicorn deposit scheme vide
circular dated 31.12.2011 on a certain stipulation which are
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
attached to the scheme with effect from 01.01.2012.
On 03.03.2012 voluntarily the complainant entered into the
scheme related to its current account as indicated in the
complaint, of course subject to terms of the scheme.
On 13.03.2012 the board directors of appellant bank were
removed and administrator Mr.A.B.Gadhavi a joint registrar
(Audit) was appointed.
Reserve Bank of India on 02.04.2012 put sanction on the
business of appellant bank in exercise of powers under Section
35 (A) and as such the banking business by virtue of that
remained close from 30.03.2012 to 27.01.2014.
By virtue of condition No.14 of Unicorn deposit scheme link with
effect from 30.03.2012, all customers were informed about
closure of the scheme and as such essentially from 03.03.2012 to
30.03.2012 the opponent original complainant remained in the
scheme.
On closure of the scheme undisputedly on 29.03.2012 the
amount had been transferred back in the current account of the
complainant and on that very day without raising any objection
sizable amount was withdrawn by the complainant from its own
current account and it is well within the knowledge of this
discontinuance of the scheme and transferred back the amount
in current account by the bank on 29.03.2012.
It is not in dispute that for that period the continuance of scheme
interest to the extent of Rs.2,23,747/ was given credit in account
and substantial amount has been withdrawn from the said
current account by the complainant. So, cause of action
according to the bank arose on 30.03.2012, by conduct and
knowledge of complainant.
Undisputedly the complaint has been filed only on 03.02.2024.
In between certain letters were written by the complainant to the
bank about 9 in numbers and then final reply was given by the
bank on 31.05.2022.
13. Now in view of this sequence of events if we perused the
application which has been filed by the complainant for seeking
condonation of delay the averments which are made are
substantially appearing in paragraph 4 and 5 which indicates
about continuous letters, except this there appears to be no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
other reason. The application for condonation of delay is
reflecting on Page 39 of revision petition compilation. The
detailed reply to this has been filed by the bank on Page 43
onwards taking specific pleas along with the directions issued by
the RBI and justification as to why gross delay need not be
condoned. Page 69 is the circular dated 31.12.2011 by virtue of
which Unicorn deposit scheme has been floated with certain
conditions and condition No. 12,13 and 14 reflecting on Page 71
indicates that all terms and conditions as well as modifications
as well as cancellation of the scheme are within the domain of
the bank and it and depends upon and the orders and
instructions that may be passed by the RBI. And these
documents in the form of condition undisputedly within the
knowledge of the complainant. The refusal by the bank is a letter
on Page 76 dated 31.05.2022, in which it has been indicated that
by virtue of RBI instructions and letter, the bank is unable to
make payment. So, these are the relevant documents attached
with the revision petition compilation.
x x x x xx
x x x x xx
x x x x xx
25. Yet another decision of Hon'ble Apex court is that sufficient
cause is a pre-condition to condone the delay and for that we are
having assistance from decision reported in AIR 1995 SC
2243/2016 (1) SCC 444, we further took assistance from the
decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 1612 as well as Page 746
which relates to the object of prescription of limitation period.
So, conjoint effect of aforesaid observations which are made by
the Hon'ble Apex court as well as the reasons which are
assigned by the Ld. District Commission below, we are of the
clear opinion that there is an error of jurisdiction material in
nature, in condoning such a gross delay and by misconception of
the sequences of events and the circumstance, and as such the
order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The benefit of
discontinuance of the scheme and for the said period of
discontinuance already proportionately availed by the
complainant and as such keeping in view the observations made
by several decisions as indicated above, we found no undue
sympathy to be assigned in favour of the complainant simply
because he might have brought the proceedings in Ld.
Consumer Commission. Hence, we are of the clear opinion that
no sufficient cause or explanation is visible, the order also does
not reflect cogent reasons from that angle and as such
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4808/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2025
undefined
condonation of such a huge delay in our opinion would be
encouraging a step to frustrate the object of limitation period.
Hence, keeping in view the relevant provisions of law as
discussed above and in view of proposition of law we deem it
proper to set aside the impugned order passed by the Id. District
Commission. Hence, revision petition deserves to be allowed
accordingly we pass following order."
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, no error or
infirmity can be attributed to the impugned judgment and order.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly
DISMISSED. No order as to costs. Pending Civil Application
stands DISPOSED OF.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
OMKAR
