The Central Bank Of India ... vs The Union Of India Rep By ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 713 Tel

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


                        WRIT APPEAL No.880 of 2005

JUDGMENT:     (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 09.03.2005

passed in W.P.No.9624 of 1999.

      The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the

Union of India being aggrieved by an order dated 01.05.1997 passed in

CMA.No.43 of 1994 by the District Judge, Warangal, and the order dated

16.01.1982 passed in CMA.No.41 of 1980 was also under consideration

before the learned Single Judge.

      The facts of the case further reveal that the Azam Jahi Mills

Limited became a sick unit and was taken over by the Government of

India keeping in view the provisions as contained under the Industries

(Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on 30.04.1971 and later on it

was nationalised keeping in view the provisions of Sick Textile

undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (for short, "the Act").          The

Central Bank of India has granted financial assistance to the Azam Jahi

Mills Limited and in the light of Section 23 of the Act, a claim was made

by the Bank before the Commissioner of Payments. The Commissioner

has allowed the claim directing payment of principal amount. However,

interest was not paid. Keeping in view sub-section (7) of Section 23 of

the Act, the claimant-Central Bank of India has approached the Principal

Civil Court of original jurisdiction i.e., Warangal by filing a CMA.

      The disputed facts of the case reveal that Union of India was not

impleaded as respondent and the Union of India came up before this

Court by filing a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.7143 of 1985 and this Court

has held that Union of India is a necessary party. It is true that the

parties are directed to appear before the District Judge, Warangal on

23.04.1990, but the fact reveals that the Central Bank of India has not

made any application for impleadment of Union of India before the

District Judge, Warangal, as evident from the cause title of the order

passed by the District Judge, Warangal, in the matter. The District

Judge, Warangal, has held that in spite of notice, the Union of India has

not appeared and again an order was passed on 01.05.1997 against

which the Union of India again preferred a writ petition i.e., W.P.No.9624

of 1999 and the learned Single Judge has held categorically that nothing

prevented the Central Bank of India to implead Union of India and as

Union of India was not impleaded as a necessary party, he has again

remanded the matter back to the Principal Civil Court of original

jurisdiction i.e., Warangal.

Learned counsel for the Central Bank of India was fair enough in

stating before this Court that the Bank will submit an application before

the trial Court for impleadment of Union of India and the trial Court be

directed to decided the matter at an early date, as the dispute is an old

dispute, which is pending for adjudication since last four decades.

In the light of the aforesaid, the present writ appeal stands

disposed of with a liberty to the appellant/Central Bank of India to

submit appropriate application for impleadment of Union of India and

the trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance

with law. It is needless to mention that as it is a dispute between the

nationalized bank and Union of India, the Union of India will also make

all sincere efforts to settle the dispute amicably, if possible as Central

Bank of India is a nationalized bank and the matter can certainly be

resolved at an appropriate level by the Central Government. It is also

brought to the notice of this Court that the principal amount has already

been paid by the Government of India and now the dispute only remains

with regard to the payment of interest.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 17.02.2022 ES