BINU VINCENT Vs. FEDERAL BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner, as principal borrower, had availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees five lakhs only) from the 1st respondent bank, which was later enhanced to Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) under an OD-CC (Over Draft-Cash Credit) account, with the 2nd petitioner and M.A. Vincent, Lincy Binu and T.S. Joseph as co-obligants. T.S.Joseph again availed an Agricultural Medium Term Loan (AMTL) of Rs.2,75,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand Only) and the Federal Kisan Credit (FKC) of Rs.85,000.00 (Rupees Eighty-Five Thousand Only).

(2.) The 1st respondent, Federal Bank Ltd, in the counter affidavit, contends that the writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on the facts. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is a private bank and not an authority or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and hence not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas [(2003) 10 SCC 733], wherein it has been categorically held that the Federal Bank is not a State under Article 12.

(3.) The 3rd respondent, the auction purchaser of the property sold by the Recovery Officer, argues that the writ petition is belated and liable to be dismissed for laches. The challenge now raised could and ought to have been made in earlier proceedings before the DRT, DRAT, and this Court, all of which concerned the same parties and the same recovery proceedings. The petitioners, having failed in all early proceedings, cannot now raise this plea for the first time. The bar of constructive res judicata applies, as explained in Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors. (). The petitioners are raising this particular issue after a period of 9 years from the proclamation of sale. It is a trite law that if there is an unexplained delay in filing a writ petition, the Court should decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, as explained by the Apex Court in State of M.P.v Nandlal Jaiswal [1986 KHC 708].