PRAFULBHAI VRAJLAL BHATT Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.J.T.Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank of India, waives service of notice of RULE on behalf of the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the petition is being finally heard and decided.

(2.) BY preferring this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any appropriate direction to the respondent Bank, and its Branch Manager, directing them to release the Title Deeds of the property of the petitioner as described in the prayer clause and to issue a 'No Dues Certificate' pertaining to the Loan Accounts of the petitioner and, further, to impose exemplary costs on the Officials of the respondent Bank.

(3.) THE petition has been strongly opposed by Mr.J.T.Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, by contending that the settlement between the Bank and the petitioner is in the nature of a private contract, and as the petitioner has an alternative remedy for enforcement of the same, this Court may not interfere in a matter regarding contractual dealings, in exercise of jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the offer of the One Time Settlement was hedged in by certain conditions, namely, that the petitioner had to withdraw all complaints and litigations against the Officers of the respondent Bank. THE criminal complaint filed by the petitioner's wife was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against which the Criminal Revision Application was filed before the concerned Sessions Court, which was withdrawn on 07-07-2009. It is forcefully contended that Special Civil Suit No.60 of 2010 instituted by the petitioner's wife has arisen out of Misc. Civil Application No.42 of 2009 filed in the Court of learned Sixth Additional Sessions Court Judge, Junagadh, for permission to sue as an indigent person, which has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. THE notice dated 18-08-2008 preceded the filing of the Misc. Civil Application which was replied by the Bank on 19-09-2008. That, there is material suppression of facts by the petitioner. THE Bank, by communication dated 11-07-2008, put an end to the Settlement,which communication has been received by the petitioner under his signature, but this aspect is not mentioned in the petition, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression.