SUTLEJ INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the Banking Ombudsman passed in Complaint No.337 of 2004-05 passed under Clause 19(2) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002 (herein after referred to as 'The Scheme of 2002') in disposing of the said complaint under Clause 19(2) of the Scheme.

(2.) The petitioner-company was having an account with the Punjab National Bank and was maintaining a cash credit Account No.41 with the said Punjab National Bank, G.I.D.C., Vapi and that on allegation that an amount of Rs.65.05 Lacs was unauthorizedly withdrawn from their cash credit account through various cheques bearing forged signatures which were not issued by the company, the petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman, Ahmedabad under the aforesaid Scheme of 2002 and the petitioner sought the relief for Rs.65.05 Lacs plus interest till final payment. It appears from the record that a recovery of Rs.18.25 Lacs was made from the Accountant's account and therefore, net relief of Rs.46.80 Lacs plus interest was sought. The claim of the petitioner was based upon the deficiency in service by the aforesaid Bank. The Bank submitted the reply dated 10.11.2004 denying the allegations against the Bank Officers that they were in collusion in the alleged fraud. It was the contention on behalf of the respondent-Bank that payments of all the cheques of the company including cheques under reference have been made in due course after verifying and comparing signatures of the authorized signatories. The Bank and its Officials have nothing to do with the alleged fraud. It appears from the record that the Banking Ombudsman tried to get the dispute amicably settled. A meeting was held on 8.12.2004 which was subsequently adjourned at the instance of the petitioner and ultimately, the next meeting was held on 28.1.2005. From the order impugned in the petition, it appears that after detailed discussion the following were agreed upon :- (a) Since complaints are complicated further clarifications/information are required to analyse and scrutinize the complaint in detail. (b) Both the parties will sit together and have detailed discussion and try to settle the dispute. (c) In case it is not settled amicably, both parties will submit information as advised latest by 25/2/2005. (d) Further course of action will be decided after receipt of information.

(3.) After considering the fact that the criminal complaint is already filed by the petitioner with regard to the alleged fraud and forging of the signatures in the cheques and that the Police has filed a charge-sheet and the proceedings are pending before the competent criminal Court and after going through the evidence on record, the Banking Ombudsman found that the issues involved and the transactions concerned are complicated in nature and it is the case of alleged fraud, which requires detailed investigation and examination of the documentary and oral evidences, which is not possible owing to the limitations of the Scheme of 2002 and while observing that in view of the on going criminal proceedings in the Court, the said office is unable to adjudicate on this matter which is sub-judice and accordingly, considering Clause 19(2) of the Scheme of 2002, the Banking Ombudsman by impugned order dated 20.6.2005 disposed of the said complaint. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 20.6.2005 passed by the Banking Ombudsman in disposing of the said complaint No.337 of 2004-05, the petitioner has filed the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.