Bihar Gramin Bank vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal And Anr on 16 August, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Patna High Court - Orders

Bihar Gramin Bank vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal And Anr on 16 August, 2019

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2135 of 2017
                 ======================================================
                 Bihar Gramin Bank, through the Authorised Officer Head Office, Begusarai
                 namely Ram Kumar Mehta, son of Ram Bhajan Prasad, R/o Gaighat Link
                 Road, Patna, P.S. - Sultanganj, District - Patna.
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                 1. The Debts Recovery Tribunal through the Registrar, 2nd Floor Karpuri
                 Thakur Sadan, Ashiyana Digha Road, P.S. - Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna.
                 2. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Sai Trading Company, son of
                 Ganga Prasad Gupta, R/o Ghose Lane, P.O. & P.S. - Samastipur, District -
                 Samastipur.
                                                                         ... ... Respondents
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-08-2019

Although the Bank has challenged the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short the "Tribunal") on the question of jurisdiction. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Tribunal has exercised it's power directing the Bank to accept the settlement at Rs. 1.75 Lakhs after recording a finding that the Bank has charged the rate of interest, penal interest on very higher side and further the Bank has charged heavy agent fee which was deputed for recovery of due amount. In the whole writ application the finding of the Tribunal has not been assailed by placing on record the relevant materials saying that the rate of interest is as agreed under the contract as also the penal interest charged thereon and further no explanation has been furnished as to the Patna High Court CWJC No.2135 of 2017(3) dt.16-08-2019 2/3 finding that heavy agent fee has been charged by the Bank. There is also no statement that no interest over interest has been charged meaning thereby that the interest has not been charged by capitalizing the interest in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra reported in 2002(1) SCC 367.

Learned counsel for the Bank submits that he will file supplementary affidavit explaining the aforesaid charges together with such documents which may be placed to strengthen the argument of the Bank.

Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 2 shall also file an affidavit in response to the writ application.

So far as the observations made by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna against Shri Paritosh Kumar, Senior Manager of the bank is concerned, this court prima-facie finds that there was no reason for the Tribunal to give such observations only because he had refused to accept the cheques. This court, therefore, directs that the observation of the Tribunal against Shri Paritosh Kumar, Senior Manager of the Bank, and the direction issued to the Chairman of the Bank to take action against him shall remain stayed.

Learned counsel for the Bank shall also seek Patna High Court CWJC No.2135 of 2017(3) dt.16-08-2019 3/3 instruction on the offer being made by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 to settle the account by paying the balance amount of the compromised amount offered by the Bank after adjusting Rs. 1,75,000/-.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has submitted before this court that he is in a very poor financial condition and somehow trying to save his only residential property. He is ready to pay Rs. 1,45,000/-, which according to him, may be treated as the balance amount of compromise. Considering the fact that the Bank had agreed to settle the account at Rs. 3.20 Lakhs before the Tribunal, it is expected that the Bank will come out with some positive view towards settlement of the account.

List this case under the same heading on 27 th August, 2019.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders