State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Liquidator, Urban Co-Operative Bank ... vs Sh. Harsh Lal Bahuguna And Others on 5 June, 2006
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL - 4 - STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL DEHRA DUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 / 2005 Liquidator, Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. ......Appellant Versus Sh. Harsh Lal Bahuguna and Others .....Respondents Sri Kushalpal Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sri J.P. Shah, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 None for the Respondent No. 3 Coram: Surendra Kumar, Senior Member Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member Dated: 05.06.2006 ORDER
(Per:
Mr. Surendra Kumar, Senior Member):
This is an appeal against the order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to make rateable payment to the complainants within 30 days if any amount is recovered by exercise of powers under Section 74 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 deposited some amount with Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Tehri Garhwal in the form of recurring deposit and on 19.10.2003, there was a balance of Rs. 8,49,191/- in their favour and the bank had to pay Rs. 9,46,508/- as maturity amount on 26.02.2001. The said complainants took a cash credit limit of Rs. 5,00,000/- against the said deposit. The maturity amount of Rs. 9,46,508/- was demanded but nothing was paid. The bank had been closed and the appellant had been appointed as liquidator. The appellant sent a notice to the complainant No. 1 on 05.04.2003 and 20.06.2003 for repayment of the loan amount. The complainants, however, claimed that the bank had to pay certain amount to them and alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint.
3. Opposite party No. 2 - appellant filed written statement and said that the bank was a co-operative society which was performing its functions under the licence granted by the Reserve Bank of India. The bank could not act properly due to which its licence was cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India. The opposite party No. 2 - appellant had been appointed as the liquidator of the bank. The opposite party - appellant took all the liabilities and assets of the bank under his control as per Section 73 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and as per the Powers of the Liquidator defined in Section 74 of the said Act, the liabilities of the bank are to be discharged rateably after recovery of the amount. As per the records, the liabilities of the bank were assessed as Rs. 296.67 lacs and the amount to be recovered from the loanees of the bank was assessed as Rs. 296.18 lacs. The payment could be made after the recovery of the loan amount.
4. The parties filed their affidavits and other relevant documents in support of their allegations. The Learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them allowed the complaint as above, against which order the present appeal has been preferred.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and have perused the material on record. It is admitted fact that the complainants were having their account with the bank. It is also admitted fact that they took a cash credit limit of Rs. 5.00 lacs from the bank. The licence of the bank was cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India and the opposite party No. 2 - appellant has been appointed as liquidator to discharge the liabilities of the bank and he is the sole incharge of all the assets of the bank. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the liquidator has to perform his duties as described under the Act. The powers of liquidator have been defined under Section 74 of the Act, which the District Forum has also considered and narrated in its judgment. It is evident from the said powers that the liquidator is authorized to perform his duties under the Act. In the written statement also the opposite party No. 2 - appellant pleaded that he is performing his duties as a liquidator as defined under the Act.
6. The bank has been liquidated and the opposite party No. 2 - appellant has been appointed as liquidator to discharge the liabilities of the bank and to protect the assets of the bank and to work in the interest of the bank and depositors. It is the duty of the liquidator to work out and determine the total assets and liabilities of the bank. If the liabilities of the bank are more than its assets, he has to distribute the amount so recovered so that most of the liabilities can be discharged. In this way, he has to pay the amount to the creditors of the bank on rateable basis as provided by Section 74 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the liquidator is ready to pay the amount to the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but the direction given by the Learned Forum to pay the amount within 30 days of the order is not proper and practicable as the assets realization proceedings take long time and since the business of the bank is on a large scale, it is not possible to set off the liabilities against the assets of the bank within a short period of 30 days. The submission has merit and we are also of the view that all such proceedings cannot be completed within a period of 30 days. The complainants are entitled to receive their deposited amount subject to the powers of the liquidator as defined under Section 74 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.
8. In our view, the opposite party No. 2 - appellant shall pay the amount to the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on receipt of the same in exercise of the powers as defined under Section 74 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. To this extent, the order of the District Forum is to be modified.
9. Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is directed to pay the amount to the complainants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on rateable basis on recovery of the same in exercise of powers under Section 74 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, as early as possible, preferable within a period of six months. No order as to costs.
(MS.
LUXMI SINGH) (SURENDRA KUMAR)