Jharkhand High Court
Ram Pravesh Singh vs The Union Of India on 18 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 02 of 2020
Ram Pravesh Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Baleshwar
Singh, resident of Otr. No.: 1198, Sector-I/C, Bokaro Steel City,
P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under the
Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act,
V of 1970, having its Head Office at Star House, C-5, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, P.O.+P.S.+District Bandra (East),
Mumbai-400051 in the State of Maharastra and having its
Branches at several places also including at Bokaro Steel City,
Branch Bokaro, Jharkhand represented through its Chief Manager;
3. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Bokaro Steel City, Sector-IV,
Branch, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Sector IV, Bokaro Steel
City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Faizal Allam, Advocate
---
11/18.11.2022
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This review petition has been filed seeking review of order
dated 12.03.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6242/2013.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on
12.03.2018, when the order in the writ court was passed, the learned
counsel for the petitioner could not appear and on earlier date i.e., on
28.02.2018 also, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent and the
order under review has been passed in absence of learned counsel for
the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the grounds for review
has been filed through I.A. No. 1499/2020, which are as follows: -
"(i) For that the impugned order is ex parte and opposite
parties did not point out the facts properly as per records.
(ii) For that the pleadings in the writ petition would show
that the Bank illegally in absence of any order of the Ld.
Tribunal, withheld the hard earned money of the petitioner.
(iii) For that the Bank still withheld excess money than the
legally payable dues.
(iv) For that the Petitioner is entitled to penal interest.
(v) For that the other and further points may be permitted to
be raised at the time of hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in absence
of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the duty of the
respondents to point out the correct facts before this Court and the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, while
disposing of the writ petition, suffers from error of record, in as much
as, the respondents had submitted that the recovery from the salary of
the petitioner was done pursuant to the order passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi.
5. The learned counsel has submitted that the writ petition was
filed on 30.09.2013 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from
withholding the monthly salary of the petitioner and seeking a
direction to release the petitioner's salary. The learned counsel
submits that the bank account involved in the present case is the salary
account of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel submits that it is not in dispute that one
suit being O.A. Case No. 97/2011 was filed by the Bank before the
Debt Recovery Tribunal, in which, the petitioner was also a party as a
guarantor and the certificate for recovery was issued on 17.10.2012,
but the order for attachment of the salary account of the petitioner was
passed in the corresponding recovery case being R.P. Case No.
35/2012 only on 28.08.2015 and it was directed that only part salary
was to be recovered each month, but the respondents had realized an
amount of Rs. 9,78,117.11 on 07.09.2015 and adjusted it against the
debt of the petitioner arising out of O.A. Case No. 97/2011. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioner had also filed one
interlocutory application in the writ records being I.A No. 6349/2015
on 05.11.2015 seeking amendment of the writ petition and challenging
the order of attachment of the bank account of the petitioner.
However, he has fairly submitted that amendment was never allowed
and the said interlocutory application remained pending.
7. The learned counsel submits that primarily the grievance of the
petitioner was that the amount was recovered from the bank account
of the petitioner prior to order of attachment and therefore, the
submission of the respondents that the recovery from the salary of the
petitioner was done pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal is an error of record and therefore, the order under review
calls for interference.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has opposed the prayer for review and has submitted that
no ground for review has been made out in the present case. The
learned counsel has submitted that if the petitioner had any grievance
in connection with recovery pursuant to the order passed by the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, he had a remedy before Debt Recovery Tribunal.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that an affidavit dated
12.01.2018 was filed by the Bank mentioning therein that the recovery
certificate amounting to Rs. 13,66,174.95 with interest and cost of Rs.
16,000/- has already been recovered and the remaining amount was
lying with the Bank which could have been used by the petitioner. He
submits that the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of affidavit
dated 12.01.2018 and no error, as such, has been pointed out with
regard to affidavit dated 12.01.2018 filed by the respondent-Bank.
10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the
writ petition was filed for the following relief: -
"1.(a) That this writ application is being filed for issuance of an
appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or
directions, commanding upon the respondents restraining them
from withholding petitioner's monthly salary amount which used
to come in the petitioner's saving Account No. 9230 of the
respondents Bank from the Bokaro Steel Plant.
1.(b) That the petitioner also prays for issuance of any other
appropriate writ or writs, order or orders direction or directions
to the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 to release the
petitioner's salaries amount with held by him from the month of
August 2010 without any rhyme and reason as well as without
any order from any courts of law or any notice to the petitioner
and he is not releasing the petitioner's salaries amount from the
month of August 2010 until now in spite of various
representations to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
1.(c) That the petitioner also prays for issuance of any other
appropriate writ or writs, order or orders direction or directions
to the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 to release the
petitioner's salaries month by month so that the petitioner and
his family members subsist their lifes.
1.(d) That the petitioner also prays for issuance of any other
appropriate writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions
for which the petitioner be found entitled to."
11. The writ petition was filed on 30.09.2013 and by that time, the
judgment of O.A. Case No. 97/2011 was already passed on
17.10.2012 for recovery of Rs. 13,66,174.95 with interest and cost of
Rs. 16,000/-, in which the petitioner was the certificate debtor. Arising
out of the said O.A. application, R.P. Case No. 35/2012 was already
instituted. However, in the writ record, nothing was disclosed about
the passing of the certificate in O.A. Case No. 97/2011, but the same
was brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit. The
grievance of the petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was
that the respondents had restrained the petitioner from operating the
Bank Account and they were withholding the petitioner's money.
There is nothing on record to suggest that the money was debited from
the account of the petitioner and was taken by the Bank prior to the
order of attachment of the bank account dated 28.08.2015.
12. It further appears that an interim order dated 11.12.2017 was
also passed by this Court in the writ proceedings, whereby a direction
was issued to the respondent-Bank to issue a letter to the petitioner
with regard to release/defreeze of his bank account within 10 days. It
further appears that pursuant to the order of attachment passed in the
recovery proceedings as back as on 28.08.2015, an amount of Rs.
9,78,117.11 was debited from the account of the petitioner. However,
the grievance with regard to excess deduction, if any, was to be taken
up by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the fact
remains that the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner raising
grievance with regard to orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal
was never allowed by this Court in the writ records.
13. During the pendency of the writ petition, the dues of the Bank
has been satisfied and an affidavit dated 12.01.2018 was filed in the
writ records mentioning that on 17.12.2017, the bank informed the
petitioner that the bank has already released the balance amount after
retaining a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- against the account of the petitioner.
It was also mentioned that after retaining the aforesaid amount Rs.
3,70,000/-, the petitioner could withdraw the remaining balance
amount.
14. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondents on 12.03.2018 that the recovery from the salary of the
petitioner was done pursuant to the order passed by the Debt Recovery
Tribunal does not suffer from any error or record, in as much as,
though the salary account of the petitioner was frozen, but no
deduction, as such, was made even till the filing of the writ petition
and the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the
respondents were withholding his salary account. The first deduction
from the account of the petitioner for the purposes of satisfaction of
debt, as it appears from the records, was done only after the order of
attachment was passed by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal.
15. It is also important to note that when the review petition was
taken up on 02.09.2022, it was specifically submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no objection, so far as
recovery of the entire certificate amount with interest as directed
arising out of O.A. Case No. 97/2011 realized from the petitioner is
concerned. It was also submitted that the excess amount has been
realized and therefore, the review petition has been filed. In such
circumstances, the respondents were directed to seek instructions and
file an affidavit enclosing therewith the statement of account of the
petitioner indicating the entries made in the account of the petitioner
with regard to realization of the certificate amount arising out of O.A.
Case No. 97 of 2011. The said affidavit has been filed and the
petitioner has not raised any grievance with regard to the accounts
submitted by the respondents through supplementary affidavit.
16. After having seen the accounts, the petitioner having not been
in a position to raise any grievance with regard to the accounts and
after having make specific submissions before this Court on
02.09.2022 that the petitioner has no objection so far as recovery of
the entire certificate amount with interest as directed in O.A. Case
NO. 97/2011 realized from the petitioner is concerned, nothing
survives in the present review petition.
17. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussions and
findings, the present review petition is hereby dismissed.
18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/Binit
