INDRAPRASTHA COLD STORAGE Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two proprietorship concerns - [i] M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage; & [ii] M/s Indra-prasth Roller Flour Mills - have instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a number of reliefs against the respondent United Commercial Bank [UCO Bank] and the functionaries/officials of the respondent UCO Bank, who have been impleaded as party-respondent no. 1 to partyrespondent no. 6 in the writ petition. One Sri Ritesh Kumar Tibrewal is the proprietor of M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage whereas his wife, Smti. Tripti Tibre-wal is the proprietor of M/s Indraprasth Roller Flour Mills. M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage was initially a partnership firm where Sri Ritesh Kumar Tibrewal and his mother, Gita Devi Agarwala [since deceased] were partners. After the death of Gita Devi Agarwala, the partnership firm - M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage stood converted to a proprietorship concern.

(2.) The background facts which are not in dispute, can be mentioned at this stage. In the year 2002, the respondent UCO Bank sanctioned credit facility to the petitioner no. 1, M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage in the form of a Term Loan of Rs.99,64,000.00. The credit facility was extended for construction of a new cold storage by M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage at Tezpur, District - Sonitpur. As a new cold storage was eligible for subsidy under the Government of India [GoI]'s Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, the Government of India [GoI] had granted an amount of Rs.53,32,800.00 out of the total Term Loan amount of Rs.99,64,000.00, as subsidy to M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme. By a letter dt. 12/3/2002, the Nodal Bank for the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development [NAB-ARD] informed the Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Jorhat [the respondent no. 5] that the Head Office of NABARD had credited the UCO Bank's current account maintained with the Reserve Bank of India [RBI] with an amount of Rs.26,66,400.00 on 11/3/2002 towards 50% advanced subsidy under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme for construction of the new cold storage by M/s Indrap-rastha Cold Storage. Subsequently on 23/12/2002 and on 24/1/2003, amounts of Rs.23,99,800.00 and Rs.2,66,600.00 respectively were released by the Government of India [GoI] in favour of M/s Indraprastha Cold Storage under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme.

(3.) The case and subsequent events, in brief, projected by the petitioners in the writ petition are that : the petitioner no. 2 was also sanctioned credit facility of Rs.1,40,00,000.00 with investment subsidy amount of Rs.35,65,000.00. The said subsidy amount was found duly adjusted in the loan account of the petitioner no. 2. An amount of Rs.3,87,918.00 was, however, found unauthorizedly withdrawn from the loan account of M/s Indraprasth Roller Flour Mills [the petitioner no. 2]. On the basis of a complaint lodged in that connection before the Banking Ombudsman, the Banking Ombudsman vide its Order dtd. 16/9/2008 directed the respondent UCO Bank to credit an amount of Rs.3,87,918.00 to the account of M/s Indraprasth Roller Flour Mills [the petitioner no. 2]. When the said amount was not credited by the respondent UCO Bank despite the Order of the Banking Ombudsman, the petitioner no. 2 had preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1847/2016. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 1847/2016 was disposed of by an Order dtd. 22/4/2016. While disposing of the writ petition, the Court had observed that the respondent Bank had acted in a most irresponsible and arbitrary manner firstly, in unaut-horizedly deducting the amount of Rs.3,87,918.00 from the account of the petitioner no. 2 and thereafter, in failing to reverse the payment despite receiving the advisory from the Banking Ombudsman as well as the approval of the competent authority to reverse the transaction and in such circumstances, the Court found the same to be a fit case where a writ of mandamus should be issued. The writ petition was, thus, disposed of by directing the respondent Bank to deposit the amount unauthorizedly debited, to the account of the petitioner no. 2 within a period of 10 [ten] days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order, failing which, the same would entail interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of receipt of the approval from the competent authority till realization of the amount.