Yellmal Ganapati @ Y. Ganapati vs Utkal Grameen Bank And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 1914 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.15886 Of 2020
                                 (Through hybrid mode)

            Yellmal Ganapati @ Y. Ganapati             ....                  Petitioners
            and another

                                                    Mr. P.C. Chhinchani, Advocate

                                            -versus-

            Utkal Grameen Bank and others              ....           Opposite Parties

                                                       Mr. C.A.Rao, Senior Advocate

                      CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                       ORDER

21.03.2022 Order No.

05. 1. Mr. Rao, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of the

bank. With reference to direction in order dated 7th March, 2022, he

submits, his client's officer is present in Court with the file.

2. He relies on views of a learned Single Judge, High Court of

Chhattisgarh in order dated 22nd August, 2017 dealing with Writ

Petition (article 227) no.375 of 2017 (Dr. Achinto Chakraborty vs.

Chairman & Managing Director, State Bank of India and others),

paragraphs 13 to 20. He relies on discussion regarding bankers' right

to lien and set off. He submits, right to set off is not a contractual right.

His client, as also bankers to petitioner, had the right to set off

proceeds of the STDRs. In addition to judgment of the Supreme Court

// 2 //

in Anumati vs. Panjab National Bank reported in (2004) 8 SCC

498, relied upon by petitioner, he also relies on Syndicate Bank vs.

Vijay Kumar reported in (1992) 2 SCC 331, paragraphs 6 and 7. He

submits further, the writ petition raises dispute on questions of fact and

as such is not maintainable. He relies on judgment dated 20th July,

2021 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.2848 of 2021

(Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others), paragraph 26.

3. On facts, he draws attention to following passage in paragraph

3 of the counter, reproduced below.

"TD A/C No.84024080803 and TD A/C No. 84024267600 were opened on 04.02.2016 and 20.02.2016 respectively for Rs.500000.00 each at Kujendri Branch where the Petitioner was the Branch Manager and he continued there as such till 17.01.2017 (date of receipt the suspension order). The TD accounts were opened in the single name of the Petitioner only and not as joint account with his wife Y Annapurna. The copy of the statement of account are enclosed herewith as Annexure-A and B. The copy of the transaction inquiry enclosed herewith as Annexure-C and D. and account details are enclosed herewith as Annexure-E and F. in the CBS system TD A/C No.84024080803 and TD A/C 84024267600, all of which reflects the name of the Petitioner only as account holder. At the request of the Petitioner the "I-Ds were entered to open the account in his name and were authorized/authenticated by him as Branch Manager. The TDs were written and signed by him. From the date of issue the TDs were kept by him as the depositor and are still with him. OD A/C No. 12291000598 is the account of the

// 3 //

Petitioner where the salary and allowances and all other receivable amount from the Bank is deposited, which constitute the income of the Petitioner. So, the TDs were raised from the salary income of the petitioner only and not from the income/earning of his wife Smt. Y. Annapurna. Again he inserted the name of his wife Smt. Y. Annapurna himself on the body of the TDRs as a joint account holder, which can very easily be verified by examining the stroke (size of letters and flow of writing) and imprint/impression of the pen. The size of the letters is bigger and imprint/impression of the pen thinner/lighter in the lateral addition portion i.e. & Y. Annapurna' and 'CARE JOINT A/C "E OR S" '. But the CBS records which could not be manipulated, reflects that the Petitioner is the only account holder of the TDs. All these are indicative of mala fide intention of the Petitioner to go away with the Term Deposits money evading his repayment obligation to the Bank. "

4. On query from Court Mr. Chhinchani, learned advocate

appearing on behalf of petitioners submits, the original receipts are

with his client. On further query from Court he submits, the deposits

were made before there was issuance of suspension order. Disciplinary

proceedings were commenced and petitioner no.1 stood removed from

service. Said petitioner was suspended by order dated 10th January,

2017.

5. Petitioner wile file additional affidavit disclosing the charge-

sheet, upon advance copy served on bank's learned advocate.

Petitioner will also produce, in original, the deposit receipts. Opposite

// 4 //

party-bank will continue to make available the file. Appearance of the

officer is excused.

6. List on 6th April, 2022.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge Prasant