RAJIV JAIN Vs. CITIZEN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in this writ petition assails order dated 6.7.2000 of the Financial Commissioner, dismissing the appeal against the arbitral award dated 29.7.1999. Petitioner challenges the impugned order; on the following grounds : (i) Petitioner Rajiv Jain was simply the authorised signatory and representative of M/s. Arihant Enterprises, the sole proprietory concern of Mr. Vijay Jain. Petitioner, in the absence of any privity of, contract with the respondents, could not he fastened with any personal liability. (ii) The proceedings under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act against the petitioner as a member, were not maintainable, sinde the borrower was M/s.Arihant Enterprises through its sole proprietor Mr. Vijay Jain M/s.Arihant Enterprises was also not a member. (iii) The claim petition under Sections 60-61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, was barred by limitation as even the legal notice was issued as far back as 24.3.1993. (iv) The petition under Section 60 of the Act was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, as Mr.Vijay Jain, sole proprietor of M/s. Arihant Enterprises had not been impleaded while petitioner had been impleadpd as authorised representative of M/s.Anhant Enterprises.

(2.) I earned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Mittal, elaborated the above grounds and urged that petitioner was not a borrower from the bank. No liability could be fastened against him merely because he was the authorised signatory of M/s. Arihant Enterprises for operating the account with the respondent bank. He submitted that petitioner could not be made liable simply because he had introduced M/s.Arihant Enterprises for the purpose of opening of the account. The proceedings before the Arbitrator were vitiated on account of non-impleadment of Mr.Vijay, Jain, sole proprietor of M/s. Arihant Enterprises as necessary party even though the initial legaI notice was served on him also. On the contrary, the respondent bank chose to proceed against the petitioner and other employees/officials of the bank. There could be no liability fatetened on the petitioner in the absence of M/s.Arihant Enterprises through its sole proprietor. Learned counsel also urged that the reference of the claims, under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, was bad since M/s.Arihant Enterprises were not a member and petitioner in his personal capacity had no liability.

(3.) Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, counsel for the respondent bank, submitted that the writ petition did not deserve to be entertained since petitioner was guilty of perpetrating a fraud on; the respondent bank. It was submitted that, M/s.Arihant Enterprises was merely a facade that had been set up by the petitioner . The so-called sole proprietor of M/s.Arihant Enterprises, Mr. Vijay Jain, was none other than an employee of the petitioner. Petitioner himself operated the account and managed M/s. Arihant Enterprises.