Madhya Pradesh High Court
Branch Manager vs Girdharilal Tarun Kumar Modi Huf on 28 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 28th OF MAY, 2024
CIVIL REVISION No. 249 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK,
SANYOGITAGANJ BRANCH, INDORE, 20,
SHARADANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TARANG CHELAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
GIRDHARILAL RAMKARAN MODI (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE S/O GIRDHARILAL JI MODI R/O
1. 1 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
G.N.S. MODI FAMILY (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
2.
MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
G.N.A. MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
3.
MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
G.N.S.A. MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
4.
MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 30-05-2024
10:25:01
2
CIVIL REVISION No. 247 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK,
SANYOGITAGANJ BRANCH, INDORE, 20,
SHARADANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TARANG CHELAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
NSA MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
1. MODI R/O 1, 2 AND 3 CHITAVAD ROAD,
NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NS MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
2.
MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NA MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
3.
MODI R/O - 1, 2 & 3 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NAP MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
4.
MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
NANDAKISHORE PRAVINKUMAR MODI
PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA NANDAKISHORE MODI
5. S/O GIRDHARILAL JI MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3
CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
GNSA MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
6.
MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
...RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 30-05-2024
10:25:01
3
(BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE)
CIVIL REVISION No. 248 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK,
SANYOGITAGANJ BRANCH, INDORE, 20,
SHARADANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TARANG CHELAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
GIRDHARILAL NANDKISHORE MODI (HUF)
KARTA - NANDAKISHORE S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
1. MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
G.N.S.A. MODI FAMILY (HUF) KARTA -
NANDAKISHORE MODI S/O GIRDHARILAL JI
2.
MODI R/O 1, 2 & 3 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE)
CIVIL REVISION No. 250 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK,
SANYOGITAGANJ BRANCH, INDORE, 20,
SHARADANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 30-05-2024
10:25:01
4
(BY SHRI TARANG CHELAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
G.L. MODI LEGAL HEIR NANDKISHORE ATMAJ
1. GIRDHARILAL JI MODI R/O 1, 2 AND 3 CHITAVAD
ROAD NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAISAHAB SETH DAYAL JI GHISALAL JI MODI
LEGAL HEIR NANDKISHORE S/O GIRDHARILAL
2.
JI MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD ROAD, NAVLAKHA
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
GNSA MODI PARIWAR (HUF) KARTA
NANDKISHORE S/O GIRDHARILAL JI MODI R/O 1
3.
CHITAVAD ROAD NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE)
CIVIL REVISION No. 251 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
BRANCH MANAGER, UCO BANK,
SANYOGITAGANJ BRANCH, INDORE, 20,
SHARADANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI TARANG CHELAWAT -ADVOCATE)
AND
GIRDHARILAL TARUN KUMAR MODI (HUF)
1. KARTA - TARUN KUMAR MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD
ROAD NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
GIRDHARILAL VARUN KUMAR MODI (HUF)
KARTA - VARUN KUMAR MODI R/O 1 CHITAVAD
2.
ROAD, NAVLAKHA, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMOL
NIVRUTTIRAO MAHANAG
Signing time: 30-05-2024
10:25:01
5
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI TARUN KUMAR MODI - ADVOCATE)
These civil revisions coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
1/ Heard on IA nos. 3608/2024, 3606/2024, 3605/2024,
3611/2024 and 3609/2024, which are the applications filed by the
petitioner for taking documents on record. The documents appear
to be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter, therefore, all
the Ias are allowed and the documents are taken on record.
2/ With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard
finally.
3/ This order shall govern the disposal of CR
Nos.249/2024, 247/2024, 248/2024, 250/2024 & 251/2024 as
similar issue is involved in all these matters.
4/ For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in
CR No.247/2024 are being taken into consideration.
5/ This civil revision has been preferred by the
petitioners under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(in short "CPC") against the impugned order dated 12.3.2024
passed by the 29th District Judge, Indore in MJC No.311/2024,
arising out of the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2016 passed in
Civil Suit no.30-A/204 by the 15 th ADJ, Indore, whereby the trial
Court has decreed the suit and declared that the
respondents/plaintiffs No.1 to 5 are entitled to get FDR amount as
mentioned in Para-1 with the interest as mentioned in Para-2.
6/ Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/decree
holders had filed a Civil Suit No.30A/2014 for declaration and
operation of certain bank accounts. In the aforesaid civil suit, the
petitioner/UCO Bank was also a party as defendant No.1. The suit
was finally decreed on 12.02.2016, holding that the plaintiff Nos.1
to 5 shall be entitled to receive the amount kept in FDR from the
date of its maturity as per the Guidelines issued by the Reserve
Bank of India in their Manual's Chapter - IV, Rule 22 (1) to (5)
with interest as provided under law. When the aforesaid decree
was put in execution by the plaintiffs, the bank filed its reply in
respect of the calculation of interest with details as per the Court
order, which is also placed on record and the executing Court, after
hearing the parties, has passed the impugned order directing the
bank to pay the interest @ 10% per annum on each FDR from the
date of their maturity.
7/ During the pendency of the matter petitioner preferred
an application under Section 47 of CPC before the trial Court by
stating that the impugned decree passed by the trial Court is only a
declaratory decree, which cannot be executed. Trial Court has not
issued any direction in the said decree for payment of the FDR
amounts along with interest. The judgment debtor has already
deposited the whole amount, therefore, execution cases are not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
8/ Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer by
submitting that executing court has determined the rate of interest
and the amount of the interest and Bank is required to deposit the
amount in every case as per the direction issued by the Court, but
the same has not been duly complied with by the petitioner and no
amount has been deposited before the Court under Order 21 Rule
11 of CPC. Hence, the application be dismissed with cost.
9/ After hearing both the parties, vide order dated
12.3.2024 the trial Court has dismissed the application under
Section 47 of CPC filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the
impugned order, petitioner has preferred all these revision
petitions.
10/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned orders passed by the executing court are arbitrary,
erroneous, contrary to the law, equity and justice and the executing
court has decided the issue regarding the rate of interest, which is
in overexercise of the jurisdiction as vested in the executing court.
Hence, he prays that the impugned order dated 12.3.2024 passed
by the trial Court be set aside and his application under Section 47
of CPC be allowed.
11/ Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents
opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that
the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are just, proper and
in accordance with law and not deserve for any interference.
12/ Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length
and perused the record with due care.
13/ From perusal of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 12/06/2016 passed in Civil Suit no. 30-A/2014 passed by
15th Additional District Judge, Indore, it is clear that the trial Court
in para 46 of the impugned judgment and decree directed that the
plaintiffs are entitled for interest of FDR as per the manual of
instructions of Chapter-4, Rule 22 of UCO Bank.Before this
revision
14/ Before these civil revisions, earlier , the pettioner/s
had preferred another civil revision,which had been decided vide
order dated 11/09/2023 passed in Civil Revision nos. 418/23,
419/2023, 420/2023, 421/2023 and 422/2023 with the direction
that the matter be remitted back to the Executing Court with the
direction to the petitioners as under :
"In such circumstances, the matter is remanded
back to the Executing Court with a direction to the
petitioner to inform the Court about the rate of interest,
which was applicable on the date of maturity and the
Executing Court is directed pass the appropriate order
applying such rate of interest, which was applicable on
the date maturity instead of 10% which was the rate of
FDRs "
15/ In compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by
this Court, the trial Court has passed appropriate order regarding
computation of rate of interest, therefore, the impugned oder
passed by the Court below cannot be considered as over exercise
of the jurisdiction.
16/ Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon the judgment delivered in the case of Lingraj Parikaray
and others Vs. Raghunath Chhotray and others [ AIR 1983
Ori 146]; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mangilal Sharma
[(1994) 2 SCC 510] and Shahajaha and others Vs. Noorjaha
and others [ Writ Petition no. 996/2018 decided on 14/01/2019],
but it is remarkable that in the instant case, consequential reliefs
were sought and granted to present decree holder, which are in
three parts; first for declaration, second for partition and third for
determination of interest part as per RBI Manual's Chapter-4 Rule
22(1) to (5) therefore, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lingraj Parikaray and others (supra); State
of Madhya Pradesh (supra); Shahajaha and others (supra) is
not applicable in the instant case.
17/ Therefore, impugned order dated 12.3.2024 passed by
the 29th District Judge, Indore in MJC No.311/2024 appears to be
just and proper. There is no illegality or pervercity. Hence, this
Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed
by ths trial Court in exercise of revisional powers conferred under
section 115 of C.P.C
18/ In light of the aforesaid, all these Civil Revisions are
dismissed by upholding the impugned order passed bythe trial
Court. No order as to cost.
19/ A copy of this order be placed in the record of all the
connected cases.
CC as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Trilok/amol
