Delhi High Court - Orders
Dinesh Kumar Jain vs Indian Bank on 21 November, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1455/2021
DINESH KUMAR JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate.
versus
INDIAN BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Advocate for R-1
& 2.
Mr. Rahul Khanna, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Jain and Mr.
Prateek Vaish, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 21.11.2022 CM APPLs. 25681/2022 (u/S 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on behalf of Respondent No. 3 seeking condonation of delay in filing reply to application filed by Appellant)
1. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing the reply is condoned.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 11334/2022 (seeking directions)
3. The present petition was decided vide order dated 06th September, 2021, relevant portion whereof is reproduced below:
"1. The petitioner and respondent no. 3, who are brothers, constituted a partnership firm by the name of Sachin Chemical Udyog. The partnership firm had a cash credit account in the respondent Indian Bank ["the Bank"]. The account was, admittedly, operable jointly by both the partners. There is some amount lying in credit in the said account.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:24.11.2022 10:24:48
2. It appears that certain disputes have arisen between the partners. A deed of dissolution of partnership was signed by them on 02.04.2017. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 3 that the matter thereafter went to arbitration and an award dated 17.04.2018 has been passed. The award is under challenge at the instance of respondent no. 3 in O.M.P.(Comm) 344/2018 [Rajeshwar Kumar Jain vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain], which is pending before this Court. In the meantime, the petitioner has requested the Bank to convert the amount lying in the cash credit account into a fixed deposit so that it accrues interest. The Bank, by the impugned communication dated 04.01.2021, has declined to do so on the ground that the mode of operation is joint, i.e. by both the parties.
3. In view of the admitted position that the account is jointly operable by both the partners, the action of the Bank cannot be interdicted. However, Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, learned counsel for the Bank, states that if both the partners make a request to place the amount in the fixed deposit, the Bank will do so.
4. Mr. Prateek Vaish, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, states that respondent no. 3 is willing to request the Bank to place the amount lying to the credit of the partnership firm in a fixed deposit, subject to the resolution of the disputes between the parties as to the partnership assets. Mr. Vaish states that there are three other litigations going on between the partners.
5. In view of Mr. Tamber's statement recorded above, no further orders are required in the writ petition. If the partners make a joint request to the Bank, the Bank will act accordingly.
6. The writ petition is disposed of, alongwith the pending application, in these terms."
4. Today, the Applicant/ Petitioner has filed the instant application seeking the following directions:
"(...) Court may graciously be pleased to issued direction to the respondent bank to convert the abovementioned amount deposited with the CC Account in to the fixed deposit and grant interest the day of deposit as per rules in the interest of justice."
5. The disposal order extracted above makes it clear that the request made to the bank had to be a joint one - of Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3 (his brother).
6. Accordingly, the parties are queried as to whether a joint request was given to Respondent-Bank for conversion of the amount into fixed deposit, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:24.11.2022 10:24:48 to which all the counsels have replied in the negative.
7. In view of the above, the Petitioner's application has no legs to stand on. The relief sought is completely misconceived. Once the matter has already been adjudicated to the effect that bank shall only consider a joint request made by the brothers, the same question cannot be reagitated by way of the instant application.
8. Dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J NOVEMBER 21, 2022 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:24.11.2022 10:24:48