Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 6]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ravinder Chatra vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 12 October, 2018

Bench: Surya Kant, Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA       CWP No.   2473 of 2018 .


                                                Decided on: 12.10.2018





    Ravinder Chatra                                          ...Petitioner

                                     Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others                     ...Respondents

    Coram           r

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice.

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 

For the petitioner:      Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Additional   Advocate   Generals,   for respondents No. 1, 2 and 6.

Mr.   Vikrant   Thakur,   Advocate,   vice Mr.   Sushant   Vir   Singh   Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 to 5.

Surya Kant, Chief Justice. (Oral) The   petitioner   is   brother­in­law   of   respondent No. 7.  The latter availed loan of  ₹ 2,30,000/­ from Himachal ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 22:59:53 :::HCHP 2 Pradesh State  Cooperative  Bank   for  the  purchase  of  Tata Sumo commercial vehicle.  The loan was availed in the year .

2006.  The petitioner, who is working as a Superintendent in the Department of Education, stood guarantor to the loan.

The documents on record reveal that the seventh respondent failed to deposit the due installments and her loan account was  classified as  NPA.    It  further  appears  that  the  Bank treated   the   loan   amount   within   the   ambit   of   "financial assistance"   under   Section   2   (d)   of   The   Himachal   Pradesh Public  Moneys  (Recovery  of  Dues)  Act,  2000  and  issued a Certificate   of   Non­Recovery,   dated   1st  August,   2016,   after issuing   show   cause   notice   to   the   borrower   and   the petitioner­guarantor.   According  to the Certificate of Non­ Recovery, dated 1st August, 2016, a sum of ₹ 8,10,735.00 was recoverable as on 30th July, 2016.

2. Since the borrower failed to pay the amount, the bank,   through   Collector   (Recovery),   has   directed   the Principal   of   Government   Senior   Secondary   School   Himri, Tehsil   Kotkhai,   District   Shimla,   where   the   petitioner   is ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 22:59:53 :::HCHP 3 posted, to effect the recovery from him being the guarantor and deduct a sum of  ₹  24,000/­ per month from his salary .

bill.

3. It is vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioner that   the   borrower   has   already   deposited   amount   of ₹  9,00,000/­ towards the loan account, as is inferable from the   documents   supplied   by   the   Bank,   and   still   a   huge amount of over  ₹  8,00,000/­ is sought to be recovered from the borrower and the petitioner.

4. In   the   light   of   the   admitted   facts   regarding availing   of   the   loan   facilities,   non­payment   of   due installments or the account having been classified as NPA, the   limited   question,   which   falls   for   consideration,   is   -

whether the recoverable amount has been determined by the Bank   in   accordance   with   law   and   agreed   terms   and conditions.   Such an issue, in our considered view, can be effectively   determined   by   the   Registrar   Cooperative Societies   in   exercise   of   his   powers   of   arbitration   under Sections 72 (d) & (e) and 73 of The Himachal Pradesh Co­ ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 22:59:53 :::HCHP 4 operative Societies Act, 1968.   It goes without saying that the respondent­Bank, being a cooperative society registered .

under the said Act, and the petitioner, being a surety of a member/loanee, is entitled to invoke the said jurisdiction.  

5. There   is   another   reason   which   prompts   us   to enable   the   petitioner   to   file   the   appeal.     The   Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 2000 does not provide any remedy of appeal etc.  Though, the right to appeal is a creation of Statute, but, it appears to us that the petitioner   cannot   be   left   remediless   on   the   question   of determination   of   the   actual   loan   amount   payable   by   the borrower   or   the   petitioner.     We,   thus,   direct   Registrar Cooperative   Societies   to   entertain   the   arbitration application/petition, as may be preferred by the petitioner under   Sections   72   (d)   &   (e)   and   73   of   the   1968   Act,   and adjudicate the same in accordance with law and principles of natural justice within a period of four months from the date of filing of such petition.  The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek interim relief before the authority referred to above.  

::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 22:59:53 :::HCHP 5

6. The   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   accordingly alongwith pending applications, if any.

.

Copy dasti.

                   (Surya Kant)          Chief Justice                       (Ajay Mohan Goel)                Judge October 12, 2018                  ( rajni )   ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2018 22:59:53 :::HCHP