SANTOSH NEMA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 9 -9 -2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6556/2001, appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The case of the appellant as put forth in the petition is that on 9 -4 -1997 the scooter of the petitioner's husband Narain Prasad Nema was found near Dhuadhar Water Fall of Narmada River at Bheraghat, with a suicide note of her husband. However, in spite of rigorous search, the body of the petitioner's husband could not be found. A report regarding the incident was lodged at police station Bheraghat and Adhartal. Narayan Prasad Nema was an employee of the respondent/bank. The respondent bank on various occasions issued certain letters in the matter of disciplinary proceedings pending against N.P. Nema on the address of the appellant. In reply to various letters, petitioner informed the bank that Shri N.P. Nema is not traceable from 9 -4 -1997. Since appellant's husband was not traceable and as there was no earning member in the family, appellant and her family was facing great financial hardship.

(2.) IN the month of July 2001, appellant learnt that respondent/bank has filed a civil suit No. 7 -A/2001 in the Court of 6th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur. The said civil suit was fixed in the last week of July 2001. The appellant obtained copy of the plaint. On perusal of the same, the petitioner learnt that her husband obtained a term loan of Rs. 1,77,000/ - from respondent/bank which is required to be repaid with interest. It was further learnt from the copy of plaint that her husband did not repay the amount of term loan, accordingly the bank in the civil suit prayed for recovery of Rs. 2,16,509/ -, including interest. When the appellant sought legal advice, she learnt that the Reserve Bank of India has framed a policy on 27 -7 -2000 whereby guidelines were issued for recovery of dues of public sector banks. In the aforesaid policy it was obligatory for the bank to inform the appellant regarding the policy so that she should repay the loan but no such information was sent to the petitioner. In the absence of knowledge of the said policy, petitioner could not avail the benefit of the same. Appellant preferred representation to the respondents for seeking the benefits of the policy. However, nothing was heard from the respondent and, therefore, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3490/2001. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent No. 2 shall take a decision in the matter. Thereafter the appellant submitted representation on 11 -8 -2001 to the respondents seeking the benefits of the scheme. This representation was rejected. Being aggrieved by the rejection of representation, appellant filed another Writ Petition No. 6565/2001 for direction to the respondents to settle the dues outstanding in the name of deceased N.P. Nema, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. By way of interim relief stay of the further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 7 -A/2001 pending in the Court of 6th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur was also sought.

(3.) COMBATING the allegations made in the writ petition, the respondents submitted the return stating therein that Shri N.P. Nema was working as Assistant Manager at Rewa branch of the respondent -bank. He was involved in fraudulent activities at various branches of the bank and extension counters of the branches. He was chargesheeted and suspended. In departmental enquiry he was found guilty and subsequently the respondent -bank terminated his services. Shri N.P. Nema by way of fraudulent transactions made unlawful gain to the tune of Rs. 4,42,404.00 and caused unlawful loss to the bank of the corresponding amount. The bank, in this respect has lodged a report with the Central Bureau of Investigation and the matter is under investigation before the C.B.I. Respondents further averred that Shri N.P. Nema had availed facility of house loan of Rs. 1,77,000/ -, consumer loan of Rs. 5,000/ - and festival loan of Rs. 4000/ - from the bank and did not repay the instalments regularly, therefore, after serving a final demand notice, respondent -bank has filed a civil suit against him for recovery of Rs. 2,16,509/ -. The 6th Addl. District Judge, decreed the suit on 30 -11 -2000 which was followed by a preliminary decree for sale of mortgaged property. The judgment debtor did not pay the decretal amount within the time stipulated in the decree. The respondent bank applied for final decree for sale of mortgaged property. The respondents further pleaded that as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, cases of wilful default and fraud were not covered under the scheme, therefore, compromise proposal given by the appellant was rejected. They also submitted that one time settlement scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India had come to an end on 30 -6 -2001.