State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Kiran A.Dhayafule Through Its ... vs Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank ... on 31 March, 2023
CC/22/259
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint No.CC/22/259
Mr.Kiran Ambadas Dhayafule,
R/at 95, Telangi Pachha Peth,
Solapur 413 005, Maharashtra State.
Having Registered Office at:
Gouri Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
95, Telangi Pachha Peth,
Solapur - 413 005, Maharashtra State. ....... Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Solapur Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra, State.
2. Shri Shrikrishna Urf Kishor A. Deshpande,
Chairman,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra State.
3. Shri Arun H. Dudhat,
.........Opponent(s)
Chief Executive Officer,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra State.
4. Shri Vinod Vijayvargiya,
General Manager,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
1
CC/22/259
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra State.
5. Shri Shriniwas H. Vallakati,
Authorised Officer/Chief Officer,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra, State
6. Shri Prashant Y. Gambhir (DGM with Branch
Power), Manager,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra, State
7. Shri Sharad Manohar Pandit,
Branch Manager,
Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.,
(Multi State Scheduled Bank)
Head Office: "Gaganbharari" Shivsmarak Sankul,
Gold Finch Peth, Solapur 413 007,
Maharashtra State
8. The Laxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
H.O.: 319, South Kasaba,
Solapur - 413 007, Maharashtra State
9. Shri Sadashiv V. Dixit,
Branch Manager,
The Laxmi Co-opoerative Bank Ltd.,
Sakhar Peth Branch,
269-A-, Sakhar Peth,
Solapur - 413 005, Maharashtra State
10.Shri Vikas Shriniwas Soni,
Vikas Soni And Company,
"ULHAS" Bungalow,
Saat Rasta Chowk, 112, Modikhana,
2
CC/22/259
Solapur - 413 001, Maharashtra State
11.Shri Vikas Shriwanas Soni,
Vikas Soni and Company (HUF),
Karta Mr.Vikas Shriniwas Soni,
"ULHAS" Bungalow,
Saat Rasta Chowk, 112, Modikhana,
Solapur - 413 001, Maharashtra State.
12.Shri Vikas Shriwanas Soni,
Vikas Traders,
"ULHAS" Bungalow,
Saat Rasta Chowk, 112, Modikhana,
Solapur - 413 001, Maharashtra State.
13.Shri Vikas Shriwanas Soni,
Vikas Traders (HUF),
Karta Mr.Vikas Shriniwas Soni,
"ULHAS" Bungalow,
Saat Rasta Chowk, 112, Modikhana,
Solapur - 413 001, Maharashtra State.
14.Mr.Sohanlal Lalchandji Bhagreecha,
R/at: Near Railway Station,
Ranebennur - 581 115, (Karnataka State).
15.Mr.Kishor Hanjarimal Jain,
R/at: Mahavir Colony, Lingad Road,
Vijaypura - 586 103, (Karnataka State).
16.Mr.Shantilal Shogalalji Oswal,
R/at: Mahavir Colony, Lingad Road,
Vijaypura - 586 103, (Karnataka State).
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
S.T. Barne - Judicial Member
For the Complainant(s) : Advocate Pillai
For the Opponent(s) : None.
3
CC/22/259
ORDER
(31/03/2023) Per Hon'ble Justice S.P. Tavade - President:
(1) The Complainant has filed present complaint and sought refund of amount of Rs.1.45 Crore with interest @24% per annum from the opponents along with compensation of Rs.28.00 Crore with interest @24% per annum and costs of Rs.5,00,000/-.
(2) It is contended in the complaint that the complainant had taken Consortium Loan of Rs.13.20 Crore in which the other Banks were Consortium. He had utilized the loan amount of Rs.10 Crore for working capital and Rs.30 Lac as Term Loan from opponent no.1. It is also contended that he failed to repay loan and hence, Suit came to be filed against him in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Solapur which was decreed. It is also contended that the opponent no.1 had applied for recovery certificate from District Deputy Registrar, who granted the recovery certificate on 03/02/2015 and 26/02/2015. It is alleged that the opponent nos.1 to 7 manipulated the record and got false and bogus recovery certificate. In pursuance of the said certificate, property of complainant was put on public auction. It was alleged that the properties which were mortgaged were also listed in Public Auction by advertisement dated 13/12/2014. It is contended that the complainant has also filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, who granted relief, but, again he filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and got the stay to the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is contended that he had obtained stay to the recovery certificate. He has given details of the property. The said events occurred in the year 2014-15.4
CC/22/259 (3) It is the case of the complainant that on 14/03/2017 the complainant presented the pay order for clearance which was drawn on opoponent no.1. The said pay order was withheld by the opponent no.1. The complainant received Return Memo on 15/03/2017 with remark "payment stopped by Court Order". It was contended that there was no Court Order for subject pay order but it was false information given by the opponent no.1. Hence, notice was issued to opponent no.1. The copy of the same is not produced on record. Similarly, the date of notice is also not mentioned in the complaint. But, it appears that on 24/08/2018 legal notice was issued by complainant to opponent nos.1 to 7. It was not replied. Hence, second notice was issued on 17/12/2020 through Advocate. It was replied by opponent nos.1 to 6 by letter dated 05/01/2021.
(4) It appears that the pay order was withheld by opponent no.1 on 15/03/2017, but, the alleged notice was issued on 24/08/2018. It was not replied. Hence, second notice was issued on 17/12/2020. It appears that the first Legal notice was issued on 24/08/2018 and second notice was issued on 17/12/2020. There is gap of more than two years for issuance of second notice. Therefore, it appears that the second notice cannot extend the period of limitation for filing complaint against opponent no.1 for withholding the pay order.
(5) The basic allegation against opponent nos.1 to 7 is that they withheld the pay order. It is also alleged that the opponent nos.1 to 7 were in collusion with opponent nos.8 to 16 have defrauded the complainant and for that separate actions are taken by the opponents against the complainant. Even opponent no.1 had also filed F.I.R. against the complainant. Complainant came to be arrested on 10/10/2016 and 5 CC/22/259 released on bail on 20/01/2017 and thereafter the incident of withholding pay order had taken place. The information of withholding of pay order was given to the complainant but no action was taken within a period of two years. Therefore, in our view, the complaint is barred by limitation. We have also observed that the opponent no.1 had started proceeding under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and similarly criminal action is also initiated against the complainant. The complainant is litigating against opponent nos.1 to 7 since 2015 in various Fora. Therefore, it was expected to file the complaint within two years from the date of withholding of pay order by opponent no.1, but, no action is taken by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is not filed within time. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Complaint is dismissed at the stage of admission since it is barred by limitation.
(ii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 31st March, 2023.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [S.T. Barne] Judicial Member emp 6