AKAR PLASTICS Vs. RAJGURUNAGAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order dated September 6th, 1991 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, pune Division, Pune in Revision Application Nos. 204 and 205 of 1988-89. It is not necessary to advert to all the events that have given rise to the initiation of proceeding against the Petitioner. Suffice is to point out that the Petitioner had obtained cash credit facility from the Respondent No. 1 -Bank as well as hypothecation loan. Recovery, certificates were issued on 26. 9. 1988 for recovery of sum of rs. 1,53,000/- and Rs. 3,15,000/- respectively from the Petitioner in respect of abovesaid transactions. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner paid substantial part of the amounts referred to in the certificates except sum of Rs. 32,024. 60, out of that Rs. 16,000/- was towards penal interest and Rs. 16,024. 60 towards surcharge. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1-Bank had granted remission of the said amount of Rs. 32,024. 60 vide its Resolution dated 28. 11. 1990. In this background, the Petitioner pleaded before the Divisional Authority that in view of this development the recovery certificates be discharged. However, that contention was resisted by the Special Recovery Officer on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 -Bank had no authority to grant any concession to the petitioner without obtaining prior approval of the Special Recovery Officer and the concerned department. The Revisional Authority accepted the said contention of the Special Recovery Officer and therefore, partly allowed the Revision application by directing the Respondent No. 1 -Bank to take steps to recover amount of Rs. 32,024. 60 towards recovery of the penal interest and surcharge. This decision is challenged by this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) IN this Petition, it is contended by Mr. Dani for the Petitioner that, since the Respondent No. 1-Bank had taken a conscious decision to for-go amount of rs. 32,024. 60. there was no reason for the Revisional Authority not to accept the Petitioner's plea for the discharge of the subject recovery certificates. According to him, there was novation of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1-Bank with regard to outstanding liability of the Petitioner to the extent of the said amount of Rs. 32,024. 60.

(3.) MR. Govilkar, for the Respondent No. 1 -Bank, on the other hand submits that, the Bank would abide by the orders of the Court.