Legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating, Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002: Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.101121 Shree Nath Pathak Son of Late Sidhnath Pathak resident of 187 M.I.G House Hanuman Nagar P.S. Patrakar Nagar District Patna Smt. Usha Pathak wife of Shree Nath Pathak resident of 187 M.I.G House Hanuman Nagar P.S. Patrakar Nagar District Patna ... Petitioner s The Union of India through the Principal Secretary Department of Finance Government of India New Delhi The General Manager Securities and Exchange Board of IndiaAct 2002 and the corresponding Rule of 2004. We find the petitioner has equally alternate efficacious remedy and the issues raised in the present lis can be easily adjudicated by the authority stipulated under the provisions. We also notice that in one such similar matter learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 50519 titled as Ashok Kumar Singh Vs the Union of India and Ors. has already dismissed similar As such liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies under the Act. Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi learned Additional Advocate General No. 10 states that if such petition is preferred within four weeks issue of limitation shall not come in the way of deciding the matter on merits. As such petition stands disposed of in the following mutually agreeable terms: a) Petitioner is permitted to take recourse to the remedies under the Act within a period of four weeks from today b) In the event of taking appropriate recourse to Patna High Court CWJC No.101121 dt.03 01 2022 the remedies under the Act within a period of four weeks from today the issue of limitation if any shall not come in the way of adjudication of the matter on merits c) Opportunity shall be granted to the parties to place on record all essential documents and materials if so required and desired d) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate and not take unnecessary e) The appropriate authority shall decide the matter on merits in compliance of the principles of natural f) The appropriate authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six months from the date of taking recourse to remedies under the Act g) Copy of the order passed by the appropriate authority shall be supplied to the parties h) Equally liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law i) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies as are otherwise available Patna High Court CWJC No.101121 dt.03 01 2022 in law before the appropriate forum the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law and with reasonable j) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open k) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order before the appropriate forum if required and desired The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application(s) if any stands disposed terms. Sanjay Karol CJ) ( Sanjeev Prakash Sharma J

Summary: Appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating is available under the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004 and the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA in the case of Shree Nath Pathak Vs. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10116 of 2021) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/s, and order/s commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner’s maturity amount/due amount forthwith, which was deposited by the petitioners to the respondent at the office of respondent in the name of investment, as well as any consequential benefit that the petitioner is entitled to in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has requested for an order directing respondent to pay interest at 18 percent per annum on the sum invested by the petitioner until the date of final payment, as well as compensation for the respondent company’s mental and economic harassment. The petitioner has requested that a criminal case be filed against the respondent for his intentional omissions and commissions and a direction to take appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating with the petitioners. The petitioner has an equally effective remedy under the terms of the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004, and the concerns stated in the current lis can be simply adjudicated by the authority stipulated as in case of Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. the Union of India and Ors dismissed a similar petition. As a result, the petitioner is free to pursue the remedies set forth in the Act and according to Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned Additional Advocate General, if such a petition is filed within four weeks, the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits. The petition is dismissed, and the petitioner has four weeks to pursue the Act’s remedies and the issue of limitation, if any, will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits. The parties will be given the opportunity to record any necessary documents and materials, if so requested and desired. Petitioner, through counsel, agrees to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournments. Within six months of taking recourse to remedies under the Act, the appropriate authority shall decide the matter on the merits, in accordance with natural justice principles, and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Click here to read the judgment Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi