Delhi High Court
Raghav Buildcon Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 July, 2016
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 7th July, 2016.
+ W.P.(C) 385/2016 & CM No.1576/2016 (for interim directions)
RAGHAV BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Hrishikesh Baruah & Mr. Pranav Jain,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. H.S. Parihar & Mr. K.S. Parihar,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj & Mr. Ajay Bahl,
Advs. for R-3.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 437/2016 & CM No.1746/2016 (for stay)
MASCOT BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Hrishikesh Baruah & Mr. Pranav Jain,
Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC for R-1.
Mr. H.S. Parihar & Mr. K.S. Parihar,
Advs. for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Bajaj & Mr. Ajay Bahl,
Advs. for R-3.
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 1 of 23
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. W.P.(C) No.385/2016 (i) seeks mandamus to the respondent No.3
Punjab and Sind Bank to refund / revert the illegal, unreasonable and
arbitrary debits made in the Term Loan Account bearing
No.03881200055026 of the petitioner with the respondent No.3 Bank and to
credit the same to Current Account bearing No.0388110043358 maintained
by the petitioner with the Nehru Palace, New Delhi branch of the respondent
No.3 Bank; (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent No.3 Bank to close the
term loan account aforesaid of the petitioner and to release all the securities
mortgaged therein and as detailed in the petition; (iii) seeks a mandamus to
the respondent No.1 Union of India (UOI) for conducting an enquiry in the
matter and to pass appropriate direction / remedial measures in terms of
Section 8 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1980 (Banking Acquisition Act); and, (iv) seeks
mandamus to the respondent No.2 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for
conducting enquiry and thereafter to pass appropriate directions in terms of
the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, particularly Section 47A thereof against
the respondent No.3 Bank for violating the various Circulars issued by the
respondent No.2 RBI from time to time.
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 2 of 23
2. W.P.(C) No.385/2016 came up first before this Court on 15 th January,
2016, when on the statement of the counsel for the petitioner that the said
petition had in fact been filed alongwith another petition which had not got
listed till then, the same was adjourned to 19th January, 2016.
3. W.P.(C) No.437/2016 (i) seeks a mandamus to the respondent No.3
Bank to remove / rectify the illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary debits made
in the accounts and the illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary demands detailed
in paragraph 9(LXX) of the said petition and the statement of account dated
15th December, 2015 Annexure P-4 to the petition in the Over Draft (OD)
Limit account maintained by the petitioner with the respondent No.3 Bank;
(ii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent No.1 UOI to conduct an enquiry and
pass appropriate directions in terms of Section 8 of the Banking Acquisition
Act; and, (iii) seeks a mandamus to the respondent No.2 RBI for conducting
enquiry and passing directions against the respondent No.3 Bank in terms of
provisions of the Banking Regulation Act for violation of the Circulars of the
respondent No.2 RBI.
4. W.P.(C) No.437/2016 came up first before this Court on 18 th January,
2016, when the same was also posted to 19th January, 2016.
5. Being prima facie of the opinion that the writ petitions were not
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 3 of 23
maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under the civil laws
for the reliefs claimed, the senior counsel for both the petitioners (the two
petitioners were stated to be sister concerns) and the counsels for the
respondents appearing on advance notice were heard in extenso on the said
aspect on 19th January, 2016 and order reserved.
6. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.385/2016:
(i) that the petitioner, engaged in the business of development of
real estate projects, to finance part of its activities had in June, 2008
availed of a term loan of Rs.20 crores from the respondent No.3 Bank;
the sanction letter dated 20th June, 2008 contained all the terms and
conditions which were to govern the contractual relationship between
the petitioner and the respondent No.3 Bank;
(ii) that it was specifically provided that the rate of interest would
be 15.20% per annum on monthly basis and the upfront fee would be
as per the Bank Guidelines;
(iii) that there was no mention of any provision for obtaining
external credit rating;
(iv) that the petitioner and its Directors were also made to sign a
number of documents but copies whereof not given to the petitioner
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 4 of 23
inspite of demand;
(v) that the petitioner provided securities including of immovable
property and corporate guarantee of petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.437/2016 for re-payment of the said term loan;
(vi) that upfront fee @ 2% to the tune of Rs.44,94,400/- was debited
on 16th July, 2008;
(vii) that as per the sanction letter, the total interest to be charged
was Basic Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) + 0.5% + 0.70%;
(viii) that on certain occasions in the financial year 2008-2009, "the
respondent No.3 Bank besides charging extra processing / upfront fee
also charged interest at a rate higher than that stipulated in the sanction
letter";
(ix) that from the financial year 2008-2009, the petitioner made
several requests to the respondent No.3 Bank to rectify the amount of
interest charged;
(x) that the representations dated 16th January, 2010 and 23rd
March, 2010 for refund of excess interest amounting to Rs.14,08,714/-
charged in the account were made;
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 5 of 23
(xi) that vide sanction letter dated 9th March, 2010, additional term
loan of Rs.5 crores was sanctioned;
(xii) that another amount of Rs.11,03,000/- was erroneously debited
from the account of the petitioner on 23rd March, 2010 as processing
fee, without there being any provision therefor in the sanction letter;
(xiii) that another representation dated 30th March, 2012 was made to
the respondent No.3 Bank to reduce the rate of interest to 13% as had
been assured;
(xiv) that vide letter dated 31st March, 2012, the respondent No.3
Bank sanctioned the review of the aforesaid two term loans and the
remaining balance at that time in the first term loan was Rs.15.78
crores and the second term loan was Rs.3.84 crores;
(xv) that in the sanction letter dated 31st March, 2012 supra for the
first time a provision was made for obtaining an external credit rating
and for imposing penalty;
(xvi) that the petitioner approached the external credit rating agency
CRISIL and whose rating was provided to the respondent No.3 Bank;
(xvii) that after the sanction letter dated 31st March, 2012, further
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 6 of 23
sums of Rs.11,00,350/- and Rs.11,23,000/- were debited from the
account of the petitioner as upfront fee / processing fee on 7th May,
2012 and 26th May, 2012, without any rationale therefor and without
informing the petitioner;
(xviii) that the aforesaid amount could not have been debited in terms
of the Fair Practice Code (FPC) issued by the respondent No.2 RBI;
(xix) that the respondent No.3 Bank vide letter dated 7 th June, 2013
proposed to debit penal interest of Rs.25,29,798/- from the account of
the petitioner for want of external agency rating; the petitioner
immediately drew attention to the report submitted of CRISIL;
however the respondent No.3 Bank nevertheless charged penal interest
to the account of the petitioner;
(xx) that the respondent No.3 Bank in contravention of sanction
letters and banking practices created a charge on the properties of the
petitioner which was much higher than the value of the loan availed,
again in violation of bank‟s FPC;
(xxi) that the term loans were again reviewed on 28th September,
2013 and in pursuance whereto a further sum of Rs.5,46,912/- was
debited from the account of the petitioner on 29th January, 2014, even
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 7 of 23
though there was no provision thereof;
(xxii) that in this manner, a total excess amount of Rs.85.75 lakhs had
been erroneously debited from the account of the petitioner and
representation dated 3rd March, 2014 was made in respect thereof;
(xxiii) that the respondent No.3 Bank as a counter-blast claimed that
there were irregularities of Rs.1.378 crores in the first term loan and of
Rs.34.14 lakhs in the second term loan account;
(xxiv) that the respondent No.3 Bank inspite of repeated reminders of
the petitioner refused to reconcile the account;
(xxv) that the petitioner submitted a detailed working of the actual
interest chargeable in its account and on scrutiny whereof the
respondent No.3 Bank admitted that it had overcharged interest in the
account of the sister concern of the petitioner to the tune of
Rs.72,41,999/-;
(xxvi) that vide letter dated 11th March, 2015, the petitioner
confirmed the balance of Rs.23,20,012.50 paise on as 31 st December,
2014; this confirmation was made subject to the pending reversal of
the excess amounts deducted;
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 8 of 23
(xxvii) that upon the failure of the respondent No.3 Bank to reconcile
the account, the petitioner and its sister concern approached the
Banking Ombudsman;
(xxviii) that the respondent No.3 Bank as a counter-blast started
issuing letters raising unauthorised, illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable
debit entries from the sister concern of the petitioner;
(xxix) that the Banking Ombudsman in the meeting held on 23 rd July,
2015 directed both the parties to sit together and reconcile the claims;
(xxx) that in terms thereof, the petitioner did a joint reconciliation on
the point of interest charges on 24th July, 2015 and 27th July, 2015 and
found excess interest to the tune of Rs.48,59,897/- and informed the
respondent No.3 Bank of the same vide its letter dated 27th July, 2015;
(xxxi) that on 23rd September, 2015, the Banking Ombudsman
directed both the parties to prepare a document reflecting agreed areas
and disagreed areas; though the respondent No.3 Bank admitted total
excess of Rs.43,49,745.79 paise was charged as interest but did not
agree to reverse the excess processing fee charged and the additional
interest charged on account of alleged non-submission of external
credit rating;
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 9 of 23
(xxxii) that after execution of the joint statement, issues were
examined by Banking Ombudsman and order reserved; though no
order was received but the Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 8th
December, 2015 informed the petitioner that no deficiency in service
rendered by the respondent No.3 Bank had been found and the case
was closed;
(xxxiii) that from June, 2008, the respondent No.3 Bank has charged
excess interest in the sum of Rs.76,35,608/- to the account of the
petitioner;
(xxxiv) that the respondent No.3 Bank by way of letter dated 27th
August, 2015 accepted that Rs.43,49,745.79 paise was excess interest
charged;
(xxxv) that according to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to
refund of the entire excess amount charged i.e. Rs.48,59,897/- along
with compound interest as well as damages;
(xxxvi) that there is no policy of the respondent No.3 Bank to impose
the said debit entries which are imposed as per the whims and fancies
of the officials of the respondent No.3 Bank;
(xxxvii) that the debit of Rs.5,84,244/- on account of non-submission
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 10 of 23
of external credit entries is also bad;
(xxxviii) that the respondent No.3 Bank on 9 th November, 2015
credited the Current Account of the petitioner with Rs.53,65,302.99
paise without any intimation or particulars;
(xxxix) that even after the aforesaid credit, an amount of
Rs.51,45,017.48 paise remains payable to the petitioner and which the
petitioner is entitled to recover from the respondent No.3 Bank.
7. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.437/2016:
(a) that a OD limit of Rs.19 crores was sanctioned by the
respondent No.3 Bank in its favour on 28th February, 2008;
(b) that the petitioner had furnished securities for re-payment
thereof;
(c) that though there was no mention in the sanction letter of
payment of upfront fee / processing fee but a sum of Rs.6,40,500/-
was debited thereto on 31st March, 2008;
(d) that the said OD limit was renewed after 12 months and
whereupon a sum of Rs.6,28,710/- was deducted from the account of
the petitioner towards upfront fee / processing fee;
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 11 of 23
(e) that the aforesaid deductions were contrary to the FPC of the
respondent No.3 Bank;
(f) that in the financial year 2008-2009, the respondent No.3 Bank
entered incorrect entries in the computer system resulting in a higher
rate of interest being charged to the petitioner;
(g) that the requests of the petitioner from the financial year 2008-
2009 for rectification of the amount of the interest charged did not
bear any fruit;
(h) that a Chartered Accountant engaged by the petitioner though at
the instance of the respondent No.3 Bank found a sum of
Rs.31,90,565/- to have been charged extra but no action was taken
thereon;
(i) that the OD limit was on 2nd February, 2010 enhanced from
Rs.19 crores to 25 crores and again processing fee of Rs.13,78,750/-
was charged without any basis;
(j) that OD limit was renewed every 12 months, further amounts of
Rs.14,04,500/- and 42,93,750/- were illegally debited to the account of
the petitioner;
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 12 of 23
(k) that the representations of the petitioner also did not bear any
fruit.
(Need to record any further details of the grievances of the
petitioner in this judgment is not felt and suffice it is to state that
according to the petitioner wrongful debits of Rs.97,41,584/- and
Rs.66,98,630.14 paise have been made).
8. The purport of giving all the particulars qua W.P.(C) No.385/2016 and
some of the particulars qua W.P.(C) No.437/2016 is to show the flavour of
the grievances of the petitioners against the respondent No.3 Bank and it was
in view thereof that I was prima facie of the opinion that the question,
whether the debits by the respondent No.3 Bank in the account of the
petitioners are wrongful or not i.e. in violation of the contract between the
petitioners and the respondent No.3 Bank and / or in violation of any binding
Circulars of the respondent No.2 RBI could not conveniently be resolved in
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the remedy if
any of the petitioners was to either avail of the civil remedies in this regard
or in the event of the respondent No.3 Bank initiating any proceedings for
recovery thereof from the petitioners, contest the said claim including on the
grounds as raised in these petitions. It was also felt that the claim in the
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 13 of 23
petitions is a money claim and / or a claim for declaration that the monies
which according to the respondent No.3 Bank are due from the petitioners
are in fact not due. It was yet further felt that if this Court were to start
entertaining petitions as the present one, the pendency of the present
petitions may come in the way of the respondent No.3 Bank initiating
proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial
Institutions Act, 1993 (DRT Act) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI Act) for realisation of its dues, thereby frustrating the spirit and
provisions of the said two legislations. It was yet further felt that unless such
petitions are nipped in the bud, even the pendency thereof was fatal to the
larger public interest in maintaining healthy banks, as the petitions of the
present nature are designed to be obstacles in early recovery by the banks of
their dues and for which purpose the legislations aforesaid are devised. It
was yet further felt that to start entertaining disputes as the present one where
money claims made by a bank against its customers are disputed on the
ground of being contrary to the contract of the bank with its customers and /
or the law would amount to converting the extraordinary jurisdiction vested
in this Court under Article 226 into ordinary civil jurisdiction and would
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 14 of 23
come in the way of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
expeditiously dealing with the deserving matters.
9. The senior counsel for the petitioners argued with reference to the
paper book of W.P.(C) No.385/2016 and drew attention to:
(i) letter dated 27th August, 2015 of the respondent No3 Bank to
the petitioner at page 206 of the paper book to contend that the
respondent No.3 Bank therein on recalculation found excess interest to
have been charged and which was rectified;
(ii) letter dated 20th May, 2015 of the office of the Banking
Ombudsman closing the case of the petitioner;
(iii) para 19 of ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit
Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 553 laying down
that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute
in regard to the facts of the case does not require the Court
entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
relegate the parties to a suit and that in an appropriate case, the writ
Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving
disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining
a writ petition, even if the same arises out of contractual obligation
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 15 of 23
and / or involves some disputed questions of fact;
(iv) argued:
(a) that the respondent No.3 Bank is claiming interest even
on the wrongfully charged amount;
(b) that the respondent No.3 Bank is charging process fee
without there being any provision therefor;
(c) that these issues can be decided in writ jurisdiction;
(d) that the Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies
International Inc. Vs. Union of India (2015) 7 SCC 728 also in
para 69 held that there is no absolute bar to the maintainability
of the writ petition in contractual matters or where there are
disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is
raised, though went on to hold that discretion lies with the High
Court which under certain circumstances, can refuse to exercise
and would normally not be exercised;
(e) drew attention to State of Kerala Vs. M.K. Jose (2015) 9
SCC 433 reiterating ABL International Ltd supra and further
holding that if from the materials that come on record it is
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 16 of 23
clearly evincible, the writ Court may exercise the power of
judicial review and argued that it is so in the present case;
(f) drew attention to the judgment dated 28th October, 2013
of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1161/2010 titled Fortuna
Foundation and Engineers AMD Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
RBI laying down that RBI cannot ignore the interests of the
borrowers and if satisfied that a particular Non-Banking
Financial Company is charging interest at unreasonable rates or
levying charges which are not called for, would be entitled to
issue appropriate directions to the financial institution to modify
the rate of interest or charges and to refrain from levying the
same;
(g) drew attention to Sardar Associates Vs. Punjab & Sind
Bank (2009) 8 SCC 257 laying down that since a public sector
bank is bound by the guidelines issued by the RBI, the Debt
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT) are entitled to enforce the same;
(h) referred to my judgment in DLF Limited Vs. Punjab
National Bank (2011) 180 DLT 435 where the demand of the
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 17 of 23
petitioner in that case for pre-payment charges was quashed.
10. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No.3 Bank argued:
(I) that the petitioners are averring errors in the entries in the
account since the year 2008;
(II) that in whichever objections of the petitioners merit was found,
the entries were reversed;
(III) that vide letter dated 4th August, 2015 of the respondent No.3
Bank to the petitioner at page 173 of the paper book in W.P.(C)
No.385/2016 the position was explained to the petitioner;
(IV) drew attention to page 76 of the paper book being a part of the
letter dated 9th March, 2010 of sanction and which provides for
charging of upfront fee / processing fee in terms of the Circular dated
28th July, 2009;
(V) that the charging of interest is in terms of the letter of sanction.
The counsel for the respondent No.3 Bank also handed over the letter
dated 20th October, 2015 of the Banking Ombudsman advising the
respondent No.3 Bank to refund the excess interest amount and stated that
the respondent No.3 Bank has complied therewith. Extract of the sanction
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 18 of 23
letter providing for the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners that
penal interest @ 2% above the normal rate would be recovered for the period
of default was also handed over and it was contended that interest which is
disputed by the petitioners is thus in terms of the contract.
11. The senior counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder:
(A) contended that the Banking Ombudsman had failed to furnish a
detailed order;
(B) drew attention to the statement of account dated 15th December,
2015 Annexure P-30 to the writ petition showing reversal of entries of
excess interest in the amount of Rs.4,62,329.85;
(C) drew attention to the letter dated 12th November, 2010 at page
264 of the paper book of the RBI to all the banks advising them to
disclose "all in cost inclusive of all such charges involved in
processing / sanction of loan application in a transparent manner to
enable the customer to compare the rates / charges with other sources
of finance and to ensure that such charges / fees are non-
discriminatory" and contended that the respondent No.3 Bank is not
doing so;
(D) argued that the respondent No.3 Bank is holding security in
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 19 of 23
excess of the amount due and refusing to release the same.
12. I am afraid, none of my aforesaid doubts about the maintainability of
the writ petition stand addressed by any of the contentions of the senior
counsel for the petitioners. What the petitioners are wanting this court to do
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is to
scrutinise the statement of account of the petitioners since the year 2008 and
to adjudicate whether the disputed entries therein are in accordance with law
and contract or not and if finds the same to be not so, to pass consequential
directions. In such an exercise, the question of limitation is also likely to
arise as unlawful debits and entries are claimed since the year 2008. Though
the jurisdiction to do such an exercise, as the petitioners are wanting this
Court to do, was traditionally and inherently of the Civil Court but with the
enactment of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act, now stands vested in the
Debt Recovery Tribunal to the extent provided therein. Once a specialised
forum has been created and before which the petitioner would have full
liberty to take all the pleas as are raised herein, I fail to see, as to why this
Court should entertain such a petition. To do so, would tantamount usurping
to itself the jurisdiction vested by law in DRT. The DRTs which are under
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, even if approached by the
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 20 of 23
respondent No.3 Bank during the pendency of these petitions, are likely to
hesitate in proceeding to adjudicate when the same question is pending
adjudication before this Court. Even otherwise, there is no reason to open up
the fora of Article 226 in a matter which is within the jurisdiction of a
specialised forum. The principle as enunciated in T.P. Vishnu Kumar Vs.
Canara Bank, P.N. Road, Tiruppur (2013) 10 SCC 652 and United Bank of
India Vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 that a writ remedy cannot be
used to prevent a fora as DRT from exercising jurisdiction is applicable to
the petition of the present nature as well.
13. Supreme Court, in Joshi Technologies International Inc. supra, after
reiterating that there is no bar to entertain writ remedy in contractual matters
or when a money claim is made or when disputed questions of fact arise,
went on to hold that normally the High Court should not entertain such a
petition if there is no public law character to the issue or if serious disputed
questions of fact of complex nature requiring oral evidence arise or if
alternative fora are available. So is the position here. There is no public law
character to the dispute raised in these petitions i.e. whether the money
claimed by the respondent No.3 Bank from the petitioners is due from the
petitioners or not. In fact, even qua the Civil Court, I have held in Radnik
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 21 of 23
Exports Vs. Standard Chartered Bank MANU/DE/1461/2014 that a suit for
declaration that the monies claimed by the defendant are not due would not
lie, as such defence can be adjudicated before the DRT in a proceeding for
recovery of those monies. The principle of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act,
1963 that mere declaration without consequential relief is not maintainable is
also attracted. Supreme Court, in Muni Lal Vs. Oriental Fire & General
Insurance Co. Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 90 held mere declaration that monies are
due, without claiming recovery thereof, cannot be claimed. If it were to be
held that after returning a finding as sought by petitioners, direction is to be
issued for payment of said amount by respondent no.3 Bank to petitioners,
then this becomes a writ petition for recovery of money and which also, as
per Joshi Technologies International Inc. supra is not maintainable.
14. The adjudication of all these questions would also involve
examination and cross-examination of witnesses, to gauge whether either of
the parties have by their conduct acquiesced in the stand of the other. It has
also been seen whether the petitioner, by keeping quiet, now till January,
2016 with respect to its grievances of the year 2008 onwards, is entitled to
any relief with respect thereto.
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 22 of 23
15. On the aspect of maintainability of writ petition, reference may also be
made to Dr. Yashwant Singh Vs. Indian Bank (2015) 220 DLT 667 (DB).
16. I therefore do not find the petitions to be maintainable and dismiss the
same.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JULY 07, 2016 „bs‟..
W.P.(C) Nos.385/2016 & 437/2016 Page 23 of 23