Case: THE MANAGER THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOP. BANK LTD Vs. FARMER BANK EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

Lambat, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Satyajit A Desai, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2. 11. The facts on record clearly indicate that neither the Respondent No.1 nor any of its members were involved when the initial allotment was made by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Appellant, when 16 plots were carved out from the allotted land and 28 tenements were constructed. The tenements were constructed by the Appellant to take care of the needs of its employees for housing. The facility of loans was also extended to each of the allottees and the finance was made available at comfortable rate of interest. It is accepted that there was absolutely no profit motive behind the exercise and the Appellant did not even demand any interest in respect of funds employed by it and what was sought to be recovered was only the element of actual costs incurred by it. 12. It is also clear from the record that the Resolution to transfer the land in favour of the employees or the legal heirs was passed by the Appellant on 21.01.2004. There is nothing on record to indicate that any requisition or demands were made by the Society to have the land transferred and yet there was any delay on part of the Appellant in acting in terms of the Resolution. There was, thus, no deficiency on part of the Appellant or refusal on its part to act in terms of the aforesaid Resolution dated 12.01.1977. If, as a result of any delay in execution of the document in favour of the Society for which the Appellant was not responsible, the Society would now be required to pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant. 13. It is true that the tabular chart extracted in para 9 of the complaint denotes that the cost of land as well as the actual expenditure incurred in erecting 28 tenements aggregated to Rs.6,34,457.87, which was divided by 28, being number of tenements, to arrive at what would be the actual cost relatable to each of those tenements. After receiving financial accommodation and other advantages, each one of the tenement holders had made good such amount. It was, therefore, contended that all the tenement holders together had some interest in said two vacant plots.However, the documents on record do not indicate any intention on part of the Appellant that any interest in respect of said two plots was intended to be created. The idea was to make available tenements to the concerned on no profit no loss basis and not to let them have those two plots and enable them to profiteer out of the transaction. That is precisely why one of the alternatives suggested by the Respondent No.1 to resolve the dispute was option e in para 13 as extracted hereinabove. The relief in the complaint gives measure of the value of those plots which was stated to be in the region of Rs.98 lakhs in the year 2012. The nature of reliefs claimed by Respondent No.1 indicates that apart from 28 tenements and the land appurtenant thereto, the Respondent No.1 was also desirous of securing interest in respect of said two plots. 14. As stated above, it was never the intent of the Appellant and there is nothing on record to even suggest that the idea was to transfer interest in respect of those two plots in favour of the employees or the Society formed by the employees. This issue was squarely raised before the National Commission but the matter was not considered at all. Be that as it may, we have gone through the record and do not find any indication or even a whisper that any decision was taken to transfer interest in relation to those two plots as well. 15. The fact of the matter however remains that some contribution towards cost of land was made by all the tenement holders. If the amount representing cost of land was Rs.90,300/- and had there been 32 tenements, individual share of every tenement holder would have come to approximately Rs.2,822/-. However, dividing said amount by number 28, the contribution that each of the tenement holder actually paid was Rs.3,225/-; which would mean that roughly Rs.400/- extra were charged from each one of them. Accepting the plea taken by the Respondent No.1 in option e in para 13 as mentioned hereinabove, interest of justice, in our view, would be met if the appellant is directed to make over to every tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- in compensation for having recovered Rs.400/- over and above what logically could have been recovered from each one of them. It is, of course, left to the appellant either pay to each tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- or transfer the entire land to the Society. 16. It was seriously argued that the role played by the appellant was not that of a service provider and all that it had done was to extend a helping hand so that its employees could satisfy their housing needs. It was also submitted that there was absolutely no profit element and in fact the appellant had incurred considerable expenditure towards interest burden for having invested some money over a period of time which element was never sought to be recovered. It is, thus, seriously disputed and submitted that the instant matter could not have been gone into by fora under the provisions of the Act. However, at this length of time, we do not deem it appropriate to relegate the Respondent No.1 to any other remedy. Therefore, in peculiar circumstances of the case, we have proceeded on the footing that the matter was maintainable before the fora under the Act. But as stated earlier, there was absolutely no deficiency on part of the Appellant and no justification in imposing any costs and directing the Appellant to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. The facts on record clearly indicate that neither the Respondent No.1 nor any of its members were involved when the initial allotment was made by the Respondent No.2 in favour of the Appellant, when 16 plots were carved out from the allotted land and 28 tenements were constructed. The tenements were constructed by the Appellant to take care of the needs of its employees for housing. The facility of loans was also extended to each of the allottees and the finance was made available at comfortable rate of interest. It is accepted that there was absolutely no profit motive behind the exercise and the Appellant did not even demand any interest in respect of funds employed by it and what was sought to be recovered was only the element of actual costs incurred by it12. It is also clear from the record that the Resolution to transfer the land in favour of the employees or the legal heirs was passed by the Appellant on 21.01.2004. There is nothing on record to indicate that any requisition or demands were made by the Society to have the land transferred and yet there was any delay on part of the Appellant in acting in terms of the Resolution. There was, thus, no deficiency on part of the Appellant or refusal on its part to act in terms of the aforesaid Resolution dated 12.01.1977. If, as a result of any delay in execution of the document in favour of the Society for which the Appellant was not responsible, the Society would now be required to pay stamp duty at an enhanced rate, that by itself does not give any entitlement to seek relief against the Appellant13. It is true that the tabular chart extracted in para 9 of the complaint denotes that the cost of land as well as the actual expenditure incurred in erecting 28 tenements aggregated to Rs.6,34,457.87, which was divided by 28, being number of tenements, to arrive at what would be the actual cost relatable to each of those tenements. After receiving financial accommodation and other advantages, each one of the tenement holders had made good such amount.However, the documents on record do not indicate any intention on part of the Appellant that any interest in respect of said two plots was intended to be created. The idea was to make available tenements to the concerned on no profit no loss basis and not to let them have those two plots and enable them to profiteer out of the transaction. That is precisely why one of the alternatives suggested by the Respondent No.1 to resolve the dispute was option e in para 13 as extracted hereinabove. The relief in the complaint gives measure of the value of those plots which was stated to be in the region of Rs.98 lakhs in the year 2012. The nature of reliefs claimed by Respondent No.1 indicates that apart from 28 tenements and the land appurtenant thereto, the Respondent No.1 was also desirous of securing interest in respect of said two plots14. As stated above, it was never the intent of the Appellant and there is nothing on record to even suggest that the idea was to transfer interest in respect of those two plots in favour of the employees or the Society formed by the employees. This issue was squarely raised before the National Commission but the matter was not considered at all. Be that as it may, we have gone through the record and do not find any indication or even a whisper that any decision was taken to transfer interest in relation to those two plots as well15. The fact of the matter however remains that some contribution towards cost of land was made by all the tenement holders. If the amount representing cost of land was Rs.90,300/- and had there been 32 tenements, individual share of every tenement holder would have come to approximately Rs.2,822/-. However, dividing said amount by number 28, the contribution that each of the tenement holder actually paid was Rs.3,225/-; which would mean that roughly Rs.400/- extra were charged from each one of them. Accepting the plea taken by the Respondent No.1 in option e in para 13 as mentioned hereinabove, interest of justice, in our view, would be met if the appellant is directed to make over to every tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- in compensation for having recovered Rs.400/- over and above what logically could have been recovered from each one of them. It is, of course, left to the appellant either pay to each tenement holder a sum of Rs.10,000/- or transfer the entire land to the SocietyHowever, at this length of time, we do not deem it appropriate to relegate the Respondent No.1 to any other remedy. Therefore, in peculiar circumstances of the case, we have proceeded on the footing that the matter was maintainable before the fora under the Act. But as stated earlier, there was absolutely no deficiency on part of the Appellant and no justification in imposing any costs and directing the Appellant to pay compensation to the Respondent No.1.