The Charminar Coop Urban Bank Ltd ... vs W. Shakeel Ansari
2022 Latest Caselaw 1996 Tel

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                       AND
   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

              W.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT:       (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      Both These Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the

common order passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.Nos.15371 of 2008 and 560 of 2011 dt.17-11-2015.


      2.   Heard Sri N.Ramesh, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that

the respondent has taken loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs from

the appellant-bank for establishing a poultry farm and

the respondent has mortgaged house bearing

No.12-2-458/3 comprising of ground and first floors

situated at Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad in the year

2001. As the respondent could not clear the loan, the

appellant bank had issued notice and later initiated

Arbitration Proceedings under Section 62 of the A.P.

2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2022

Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') and

the Arbitrator was pleased to pass an award in favour

of the appellant-bank on 23-08-2022 for a sum of

Rs.32,42,468/-. Even after passing of the award, the

respondent did not pay the amount as awarded by the

Arbitrator. Later, the appellant bank has filed

E.P.No.2 of 2003 before the Deputy Registrar under

Section 72 of the Act. While matters stood thus, the

respondent has misrepresented the bank by

submitting an application that he does not have any

other property and submitted an application in the

year 2009 to consider his case under One Time

Settlement (OTS) Scheme.

4. It has been further contended that the

appellant bank had issued letter dt.26-12-2007

accepting to offer made by the respondent and

permitted him to pay an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-

under OTS scheme as full and final settlement of the

outstanding amount. Later, the bank has realised that 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2022

the respondent has played fraud and the officers of the

respondent-bank have colluded with the respondent

and made the appellant-bank to erroneously accept

the OTS scheme in favour of the respondent and later

the appellant bank has initiated proceedings by

issuing notice for execution of the E.P. No.2 of 2003.

Challenging the same, the respondent has filed the

present two Writ Petitions. It has been further

contended that the learned Single Judge without

appreciating any of the contentions raised by the

appellant had mechanically allowed the Writ Petitions.

Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ

Appeals by setting aside the orders of the learned

Single Judge and permit the appellants to proceed

against the respondent for recovery of the amounts to

which the appellant bank is legally entitled.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent had

contended that the offer of OTS scheme made by the

respondent was accepted by the appellant bank and 4 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2022

appellant bank had issued notice of accepting the OTS

scheme offered by the respondent by issuing a notice

on 26-12-2007 and the respondent has paid the

amount of Rs.18,00,000/- on 27-12-2007 and in spite

of the entire amount being settled under OTS scheme,

the appellant bank was not returning the documents.

In those set of circumstances, the respondent has filed

two Writ Petitions and the learned Single Judge has

rightly allowed the Writ Petitions. Therefore, there are

no merits in the Writ Appeals and the same are liable

to be dismissed.

6. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered

view that the appellant bank has accepted the OTS

scheme offered by the respondent and permitted him

to pay an amount of Rs.18.00 lakhs on 27-12-2007.

Once the loan amount of the respondent has been

received under OTS scheme, the appellant-bank

cannot turn around and re-agitate the issue to recover 5 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.Nos.115 & 116 of 2022

the amounts from the respondent and the learned

Single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petitions.

This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders

of the learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly, both the Writ Appeals fail and

the same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 19.04.2022 kvr