INDER SURGICAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in the trading of surgical items. The petitioner was availing of the limits from its principal banker Punjab National Bank -respondent No. 4. It is the say of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 -Bank, through its representatives, approached the petitioner for advancing cash credit facilities to the petitioner and in terms thereof, the account of the petitioner with respondent No. 4 was to be taken over by respondent No. 3 -Bank. The communication in this behalf was addressed by respondent No. 3 -Bank to the petitioner on 22.06.2010, on which date the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,79,238/ - as processing fee to respondent No. 3 -Bank for taking over of the cash credit account. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 -Bank actually did not take over the cash credit account and the petitioner was left high and dry with the processing fee being appropriated by respondent No. 2. This has resulted in communication dated 11.02.2011 of the petitioner to respondent No. 3 -Bank in the following terms: -

(2.) THERE was no response, which resulted in the petitioner approaching the banking Ombudsman. On enquiry from the banking Ombudsman, respondent No. 3 sent a letter dated 15.02.2011 to the petitioner in the following terms: -

(3.) THE sole defence raised by respondent No. 3 -Bank is that they actually processed the application of the petitioner and kept the pay orders ready but it is the petitioner who asked the matter to be kept on hold. It is their further say that they approached even the respondent No. 4 -Bank, which also refused to let the debt being taken over.