The Karnataka Industrial Co Op ... vs Sri. Chand Pasha
2022 Latest Caselaw 7435 Kant

                                1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                             PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                              AND
              THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

              W.A.NO.1150 OF 2018 (CS-RES)
                           IN
              W.P.NO.24494 OF 2017 (CS-RES)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL
       CO-OP. BANK LIMITED
       NO.11, BULL TEMPLE ROAD
       BASAVANAGUDI,
       BENGALURU - 560 004
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

2.     THE MANAGER
       KSIC BANK LIMITED.,
       KOLAR - 563 128
                                           ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. KALADEEPA, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. G.S PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. CHAND PASHA
       S/O LATE WAHAB KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       M/S MSCP SILK TWISTING AND
       REELING INDUSTRIES
                              2


     I DIVISION, VENKATAGIRI KOTE
     CHINTAMANI - 563 125

2.   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
     CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND
     OFFICER FOR RECOVERY,
     KSIC BANK LIMITED,
     NO.11, BASAVANAGUDI
     BENGALURU - 560 004
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.K.NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    VIDE ORDER DATED 16.02.2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE
    TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)

     THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL
BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2017 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.24494/2017 (CS-RES) AND DISMISS THE SAID WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

     THIS WA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                     JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka

High Court, 1961 has been filed against the order dated

04.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which writ

petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that respondent is running a silk twisting and

reeling industry in the name and style M/s MSCP Silk Twisting

and Reeling Industries at Venkatagiri Kote, Chintamani. The

respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the

Karnataka Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd., (hereinafter

referred to as 'the appellant' in the year 2002). However, the

respondent did not repay the loan along with interest. The

State Government issued an order dated 20.01.2011 by which

the interest was waived in respect of loan extended to silk

reelers. The benefit of waiver of interest was granted upto an

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in respect of persons who are

ready and willing to pay the principal amount on or before

31.03.2011.

3. The respondent claimed the benefit of the

aforesaid Government Order and approached the appellant to

receive the balance of principal amount and to close the

account. However, the request made by the respondent was

not acceded to by the appellant. The respondent thereafter

filed W.P.No.55957/2013 in which the interim order passed by

the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.12.2013 by which

the respondent was permitted to approach the Bank by

submitting the representation and deposit the principal

amount. Eventually, the writ petition was disposed of by

learned Single Jude by order dated 24.03.2014. The relevant

extract of the aforesaid order reads as under:

"13. As the Bank has not discharged such an obligation, a direction is issued to the Bank to consider the representations and extend the benefit of the Government order to the petitioner and call upon him to pay the amount that he may be found due after adjusting the amount already paid, keeping in mind the terms and conditions of the Government Order. Petitioner shall be informed of the details regarding the adjustment of the amount already paid and the balance amount payable by him by extending the loan waiver scheme within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner shall discharge the dues within two weeks from the date of receipt of communication

from the Bank. If the amount is paid within two weeks, petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of the Government Order and not otherwise. Ordered accordingly."

4. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, it is

evident that the appellant was required to inform the

respondent within two weeks the balance amount payable by

him by extending the loan waiver benefit of the Government

Order dated 20.01.2011. The respondent was required to

deposit the balance amount within two weeks from the date of

receipt of such communication by the Bank. Admittedly, the

Bank sent a communication dated 19.04.2014 to the

respondent by which the benefit of the Government Order

dated 20.1.2011 was not extended to the respondent and sum

of Rs.6,23,758/- was demanded from the respondent. The

respondent admittedly deposited an amount of Rs.1,16,109/-

within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the

communication from the Bank i.e., on 29.04.2014. However,

despite the fact that the respondent had paid the principal

amount to the appellant, the original documents that the

respondent had deposited with the appellant were not

returned to the respondent. The respondent thereupon filed a

writ petition before the learned Single Judge which has been

allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated

04.12.2017, which impugned in this appeal

5. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the

learned Single Judge has grossly erred in directing the return

of all original documents pledged with the appellant-Bank. It

is further submitted that the respondent did not deposit the

amount as per the Government Order dated 20.01.2011 on or

before 31.12.2013. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled

for the benefit of the scheme. However, it was fairly

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

principal amount has been deposited by the respondent. On

the other hand learned counsel for respondent has supported

the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. We have considered the submissions made by both

sides.

7. It is not in dispute that the order dated

24.03.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.55957/2013, the relevant portion of which has been

extracted in paragraph No.3, has attained finality. The

aforesaid order binds the parties. The Government Order

dated 20.01.2011 provided that if the respondent deposited

the principal amount within the period of two weeks from the

date of receipt of communication, the respondent shall be

entitled to the benefit of waiver contained in the Government

Order dated 20.01.2011. The respondent has deposited the

amount of Rs.1,08,891/- and thereafter a sum of

Rs.1,16,109/- on 29.04.2014 on receipt of communication

received by the appellant-Bank within two weeks. Thus,

respondent admittedly has deposited the principal amount of

loan which was taken by him from the appellant.

8. In the light of the directions contained in the order

dated 24.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge, the

respondent is entitled to the benefit of Government Order

dated 20.01.2011 issued by the State Government. The

learned Single Judge therefore in the facts and circusmtances

has rightly directed the appellant to return the original

documents.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find

any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RR