Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Una Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Rambhai Samatbhai Solonki on 16 March, 2023
Bench: A.S. Bopanna, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2018-2019 OF 2012
UNA PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMBHAI SAMATBHAI SOLONKI Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The appellant-Cooperative Bank is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (For short `NCDRC’) in First Appeal NO. 437 of 2010 and also the order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the NCDRC in Review Application NO.129 of 2011.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. The matter lies in a narrow compass. The respondent herein had deposited certain amounts under various fixed deposits in all amounting to Rs.21,42,472. Since according to the respondent the said amount was to be paid to them on maturity and had not been paid,he approached the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Complaint Case No.5 of 2009. The State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed payment of the said amount of Rs.21,42,472 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and also the compensation of Rs.5,000/- as well as the costs of Signature Not Verified Rs.2,000/-.
Digitally signed byRajni Mukhi
The appellant herein claiming to be aggrieved by the Date: 2023.03.17 16:15:34 IST Reason:
1
same was before the NCDRC in the above noted appeal. The appeal had been rejected by the NCDRC. At an earlier instance the appellant was before this Court and the said appeal was disposed of allowing the appellant herein to seek review of the order dated 26.04.2011 passed by the NCDRC. However, the review has been dismissed by a cryptic order dated 05.09.2011 and it is in that light the appellants are assailing the order passed in the appeal as well as the review.
In that light, the contention on behalf of the appellant essentially is that though the fixed deposits had been kept with the appellant-bank, the same was retained as security for the loan advanced regarding which the recovery proceedings are still pend- ing. Therefore, in that circumstance it is contended that until the recovery proceedings is disposed of the cause to pay the fixed deposit would not arise and therefore the State Commission as well as the NCDRC had committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and issuing direction to pay.
Learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the orders passed contending that the money belonging to the respondent was kept in fixed deposit and when the period of maturity has elapsed and it is matured for payment, the payment was required to be made.
Though the said rival contentions are put forth, in a matter of the present nature, we deem it appropriate at the outset 2 to direct the disposal of the suit so that the rights of the parties would stand determined and in the said suit if the appellants herein fail and the same attains finality, in such event they would have no option but to pay the amount kept in fixed deposit with the accrued interest. In that light, the interest of the respondent would also stand protected. It is further to be indicated that in such situation, at this juncture, we see no reason to set aside the order passed by the State Commission which is upheld by the NCDRC but the appropriate course would be to keep it in abeyance and allow the suit to be disposed of within a time frame. If in the suit the appellant fails and despite the finality of the said proceedings the fixed deposit amount is not paid, in such event the said order passed would be available to be executed. On the other hand if the respondent fails in the suit, the fixed deposit amount will have to be appropriated towards the dues and will not be payable, in which event the orders impugned will not be available to be executed.
In that view of the matter we order that the direction issued by the State Commission vide order dated 21.09.2010 in Complaint Case No. 5 of 2009 and upheld by the NCDRC through the order dated 26.04.2011 shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the proceedings in Lavad Case No. 42-64 of 2008 and connected suits pending before the Board of Registrar’s Nominees, Rajkot Range, Rajkot. In that regard we direct that the proceedings be- fore the Board of Registrar’s Nominees, Rajkot Range, Rajkot in the said suit shall be proceeded in an expeditious manner and the same 3 shall be concluded in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in in any event not later than four months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the concerned court. The parties shall co-operate with the Registrar for early disposal of the proceedings.
Needless to mention, all contentions of the parties in the suit pending before the Registrar shall be decided on its own merits and any of the observations contained either in the order of the State Commission, NCDRC and this Court shall not weigh in the mind of the Registrar.
In terms of the above directions, the appeals stand disposed of.
…………………………………………...J. [A.S. BOPANNA] …………………………………………...J. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI;
MARCH 16, 2023
4
ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.12 SECTION XVII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos. 2018-2019/2012
UNA PEOPLES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMBHAI SAMATBHAI SOLONKI Respondent(s)
Date : 16-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Appellant(s) Mr. Amar Dave, Adv.
Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Adv.
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals stand disposed of in terms of signed order. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5