Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 Date of decision: November 19, 2010. Rakesh Dutta ...Petitioner(s) v. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Jyoti Sareen, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.5.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 – Bank has not adhered to sound accounting practice and have charged the interest in excess. To adjudicate upon the prayer in the writ petition, it will be necessary to recapitulate the brief facts of the case. The petitioner was employee of respondent No.3 – The Citizen Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalandhar (hereinafter referred as the Bank) and was discharging his duties as Assistant Manager. In the year 1997, the Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs.3.00 lacs in employee category for construction of the house. The loan was to be repaid by the petitioner in 120 equal monthly installments of Rs.3,000/-. The rate of interest agreed was 10.5% simple, to be compounded on quarterly rests. Needless to say that the petitioner was aware of the prevailing practice and the contract arrived at between the parties. Services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1999 and respondent No.3 – Bank recalled payment of the loan. When the services of the petitioner were terminated, he had paid Rs.72,000/- towards the discharge of the loan. Since the petitioner could not re-pay the amount of Rs.3.00 lacs, the bank raised a dispute under Section 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act for the recovery of Rs.2,28,000/- as principal and interest of Rs.91,407 along cost of Rs.250/-. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar acting as an Arbitrator passed his award on 9.1.2002. The award was assailed by the petitioner in an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar on 22.12.2002. After appeal having been dismissed, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar, acting as an executor of the award, issued auction notice on 21.2.2003. The issuance of auction notice was made subject matter of revision petition. The revision petition was not decided before the date of auction, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition viz CWP No.3583 of 2003. This Court on 4.3.2003, stayed the auction proceedings subject to deposit of Rs.90,000/- by the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner deposited Rs.90,000/- by way of demand drafts on 3.3.2003 and 4.3.2003. CWP No.3583 of 2003 was disposed of by this Court on Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 -: 3 :- 30.10.2003 by directing the revisional authority to decide the revision petition within a period of four months. During the pendency of the revision petition, petitioner approached the Bank for one-time settlement. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The order of the revisional authority has not been annexed with the writ petition. The order of the revisional authority was again assailed by filing writ petition viz CWP No.9964 of 2004. This Court ordered stay of the auction notice subject to deposit of Rs.1,38,000/-. It is stayed that the amount was deposited by the petitioner. It is further averred in the writ petition that during the pendency of CWP No.9964 of 2004, various demands made by the petitioner to settle the account once for all could not fructify. On 18.12.2006, again auction notice was issued. The auction notice was again challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition viz CWP No.1423 of 2007. Auction notice was again stayed by this Court subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in the month of February, 2007. Case of the petitioner is that by February, 2007, the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs against the principal amount of Rs.3.00 lacs. The above stated CWP No.1423 of 2007 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by observing that the petitioner can raise the issue of calculation of the interest on the alleged principal amount, before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar. In consonance with the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court, the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalandhar carried the calculations and ordered that as on 28.2.2007, principal amount of Rs.90,800/- and interest of Rs.69,862/- was due from the petitioner. Petitioner, being aggrieved against that order, also approached this Court. Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 -: 4 :- The petitioner filed petition after petition. It is beyond the comprehension of this Court as to how many times this Court will come to the rescue of the petitioner to effect calculations. Petitioner, instead of resolving the dispute, is on the consistent mode of litigation. It seems that to ward off the liability, the petitioner has opted that litigation is a better course than to pay. This Court, in the present case, has referred the dispute to the Lok Adalat on February 5, 2010. No consensus regarding the quantum of amount, payable by the petitioner, could be reached before the Lok Adalat and the matter was again sent back to this Court. The only argument which Counsel for the petitioner raised time and again is that for an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs, the petitioner has already paid Rs.4.00 lacs. On November 15, 2010, this Court has passed the following order:- “Ms. Chopra assures this Court that for one time settlement of the dispute, the Manager of respondent No.3 – Citizen Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. will remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing, along with the relevant record and necessary instructions. List on 17th November, 2010.” Today, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Manager of the respondent-Bank is present in the Court along with the statement of accounts. It is stated by Counsel for the respondent-Bank that relying upon Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, 2002(1) ISJ (Banking) 1, they have charged only 6% simple interest, after passing of the award. It is not in dispute that the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid case was followed by this Court in Laxmi Narain & Ors. v. State Bank of India, 2010(2) BC 158. Civil Writ Petition No.11168 of 2009 -: 5 :- Counsel for the respondent-Bank, on instructions from Manish Kaushal, Bank Manager, has stated that as on today, Rs.1,14,000/- is due against the petitioner. On an enquiry made by this Court, it is stated that the outstanding amount of Rs.1,14,000/- also includes Rs.57,000/- towards litigation expenses. On the observation made by this Court that litigation expenses appear to be on a higher side, Counsel for the respondent has very fairly stated that they will write off Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses and they will resolve the dispute by way of one-time-settlement if the petitioner comes forward to pay Rs.84,000/- on or before 31st December, 2010. While this Court was in the process of hearing the arguments, Counsel for the petitioner, sensing imminent dismissal of the writ petition, at this stage has stated that the petitioner shall pay Rs.84,000/- on or before 15th January, 2011 in three installments. Though there seems to be no justification to extend the period by 15 days but in order to bring an end to the long pending litigation, this Court will request the Bank to accept this proposal also. Hence, taking the word of the Counsel that Rs.84,000/- shall be paid in three installments on or before 15th January, 2011, this Court orders that in case the said amount is paid within the stipulated time, the property of the petitioner mortgaged with the Bank shall be released. However, in case the petitioner fails to honour his word, the Bank will proceed immediately to auction the property and safeguard its interest. Disposed of. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 19, 2010. Judge kadyan