Delhi High Court - Orders
Satyapal Singh vs The Delhi State Cooperative Bank ... on 30 November, 2022
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~26 & 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
26
+ W.P.(C) 5324/2021
SATYAPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Nitesh
Mehra, Ms. Hitakshi Mehra, Mr. Anmol
Acharya, Mr. Rayaduram Bharat, Mr.Piyo
Harold Jaimon and Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik,
Advocates.
versus
THE DELHI STATE COOPERATIVE BANK
LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava,
Advocate for R-1.
27
+ W.P.(C) 7462/2022, C.M. APPL. 22817/2022
SUNITA SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.K. Kaushik, Advocate.
versus
THE DELHI STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh K. Tripathi,
Mr. Arun Panwar and Ms. Mahak Rankawat,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 30.11.2022 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petitions and places reliance on certain judgments passed by the Co- ordinate Benches of this Court. Dr. George on the other hand relies on the judgement of this Court in M.R. Bhardwaj v. Delhi State Co- operative Bank Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3574, decided on Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5324/2021 & connected matter Page 1 of 2 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2022 19:02:04 26.08.2011, more particularly, para 7 thereof, which reads as under:
"7. This Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties essentially on the maintainability of writ petition on 16th August 2011. There are a large number of precedents cited in the order dated 20th April 2011 in W.P. (C) No. 105 of 2010 [Anand Prakash v. The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited] where a learned Single Judge concluded that writ petition against Respondent No. 1 Bank was not maintainable. The decision appears to turn essentially on the decision in S.S. Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies concerning the Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The said decision does not however take note of the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in Kanak Rastogi v. The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited where a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition was rejected in view of the earlier decision of this Court in Kuldip Mehta v. Union of India 1993 (2) Delhi Lawyer
196. It also does not take into account the decision of this Court in Chander Bhan v. Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited wherein the writ petition was entertained against Respondent No. 1 Bank."
It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgement, Court has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kanak Rustogi v. The Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited in W.P.(C) 112/1993, decided on 27.08.1993, wherein the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been rejected against the present Respondent.
At this stage, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties jointly submit that copy of the judgment of the Division Bench in Kanak Rustogi (supra) is not available and time be granted to place the said judgment before this Court albeit learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 also points out that in the said judgment the Court had rejected the argument of maintainability since the matter had been pending in Court for several years and Rule nisi had been issued. However, the Court had clearly observed that the judgment was being passed in the facts of the case and would not be treated as a precedent.
At request, list on 11.01.2023.
JYOTI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 30, 2022/sn Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5324/2021 & connected matter Page 2 of 2 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:05.12.2022 19:02:04