DEV PHARMA LABORATORIES LIMITED Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this complaint, the complainant alleged deficiency in the service of Dena Bank. The complainant alleged that he had a Current Account No. 23076 in Horniman Circle Branch of Dena Bank since 1980. The said Account was changed in the name of Public Limited Company of Dev Pharma Laboratories Pvt. Ltd around July, 1992. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited a Cheque dated 15-1-1993 for Rs. 7.50 lakhs in the aforesaid account. It was cleared on 18-1-1993. The complainant again issued two cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each on 16-1-1993 in favour of Pengwin Electronics Ltd. The complainant alleged on enquiries on 21-1-1993 he was informed that the operation of the complainants Account has been stopped and a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs have been appropriated by Dena Bank towards the outstanding dues in respect of the credit facilities on 19-1-1993. The complainant alleged that he informed the Bank that they cannot step the operation of the account and also cannot appropriate the amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs without notice. The complainant again informed the opposite party by letter dated 23-1-1993 but no action was taken. However, by a letter dated 29-1-1993 the O.P. informed the complainant that Rs. 7.50 lakhs were adjusted towards the Bank dues and, therefore, the two cheques for Rs. 2,00,000/- issued to M/s. Pengwin Electronics were returned with the endorsement "Refer to Drawer". The complainant, therefore, alleged that this is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party and claimed the direction to credit Rs. 7.50 lakhs to their Account by the opposite party. It is also alleged that this commission should direct the Bank to allow the operation of the aforesaid account and to allow the withdrawal from the said account.

(2.) THE opposite party filed its written version dated 6-8-1993 and opposed the complainants claim. THE opposite party denied any deficiency in the service. It is contended by the Bank that the issues raised in the present complaint were the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 298 of 1993 filed by the complainant in the High Court and the said petition was rejected. It is contended that the opposite party has filed the suit No. 1597 of 1993 against the complainant in the Bombay High Court for the recovery of the dues of the opposite party. It is contended that the adjustment of Rs. 7.50 lakhs as claimed by the complainant is also covered in the subject matter of the said suit. Under these circumstances it is contended that this complaint is not maintainable.