TOPLINE SHOES LTD. Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by Shri H.M.G. Murthy, claiming to be the Managing Director of a Company, namely, "Topline Shoes Limited", for appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1-Reserve Bank of India, to cause the registration of a criminal complaint against the corporation Bank and the Canara Bank respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively as per the provisions contained in Section 46 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act" for short) in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Baroda on account of the offences committed by the said Banks under the Act. It is also prayed to issue further orders to the respondent No. 1-Reserve Bank of India to include and mention the name of the petitioner as informant in the complaint to the Court for the purposes of Section 48 of the said Act and to direct the trial Court to allow the petitioner to present evidence against the accused Banks. It is also prayed for issuance of appropriate order to the trial Court to bring a suitable sympathetic order under Section 48 of the said Act while giving the final order and judgment in the complaint. Alternatively, the petitioner has prayed that if the respondent. No. 1-Bank is allowed by this Court to conduct appropriate proceedings under Section 47A of the Act, they be ordered to complete the process within a period of three months and be further ordered to allow the use of the fine amounts, if any, by the petitioner in its business on appropriate banking terms for a suitable period. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for against the Banks on the allegation that they failed to observe the Reserve Bank of India's directives.

(2.) It appears that, initially, the petition was filed only against the respondent No. 1-Reserve Bank of India. However, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the Corporation Bank and the Canara Bank, came to be joined as party respondents in this petition subsequently as per the order dated 26th April, 2001 passed by this Court in Civil Application No. 2943 of 2000. Two more applications being Civil Application Nos. 5910 and 5911 of 2000 have been filed. In Civil Application No. 5910 of 2000, it has been prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to plead and rely upon on the statements/submissions/facts contained/mentioned in that Civil Application when the matter contained in Special Civil Application No. 3011 of 2000 is taken up for hearing. In the other Civil Application No. 5911 of 2000, it has been prayed that this Court may call for the details collected by the Department of Banking Supervision (DBS) and peruse the same before any order is made in the petition. It is also prayed that copies of explanations submitted by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to the DBS be supplied to the petitioner. Lastly it is prayed that the directive of this Court be directed to be implemented through the DBS of respondent No. 1.

(3.) During the course of hearing of the main petition, learned Counsel Mr. Panesar appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of Mr. Murthy to appear for the petitioner Company. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that Mr. Mruthy has not filed the petition in his personal capacity but in the name of the Company. He has submitted that Petitioner Company being a separate legal, entity, no Director or Managing Director is entitled to argue out the case in any Court on behalf of the Company. He has also drawn my attention to the following decisions :