Dismissed

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale v. Col. R. D. Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014WP/10252/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ directing RBI to examine a One Time Settlement Scheme application and quashing a Registrar's communication. Court found antecedent grievance dated 2008 was abandoned till 2013, no scheme currently available, and ofered relief devoid of substance. Consequently, writ jurisdiction not invoked. Petition rejected for delay and lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition is rejected. No writ directed and no communication quashed.

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale Vs Col. R. D. Nikam Sainik… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp10252.13

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10252 OF 2013

¶6

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale : Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Col.R.D.Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.R. Papayya for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Khaire for Respondent no.1.

¶11

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent nos.3 & 4.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

DATE : MARCH 06, 2014. P.C.:

¶14

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

¶15

Counsel for the respective Respondents.

¶16

The substantive prayer in this Petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Reserve Bank of India to examine the application made by the Petitioner on 07.10.2013 for grant of benefit under the One

¶17

Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. The second substantive prayer is for

1 of 4

wp10252.13

krs

quashing and setting aside the communication dated 25.06.2013 issued by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Satara.

¶22

An earlier application was made by the Petitioner to the first Respondent-Bank for grant of benefits under the O.T.S. Scheme under the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2008. By detailed reasons recorded by communication dated 07.06.2008, the first Respondent rejected the said application. It appears that on 20.06.2008 the Petitioner replied to the said communication and, thereafter, kept quiet. In the year 2013 an application was made by the Petitioner to the District Deputy Registrar for Co-operative Societies purporting to be an application under section 79 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the “said Act of 1960”) with a prayer to direct the first Respondent to settle the term loan account as per the O.T.S. Scheme. The said application was disposed of by communication dated 25.06.2013 issued by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The communication records that as per the Government Resolution dated 10.03.2008, Urban Cooperative Banks are not bound to accept the O.T.S. Scheme and, therefore, no directions could be issued under section 79 of the said Act of 1960.

2 of 4

wp10252.13

krs

We have perused the application dated 07.10.2013 made by the Petitioner to the Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India through his Advocate. The entire grievance in the application seems to be on the basis of rejection of the application made by the Petitioner to the first Respondent in the year 2008.

¶27

Perusal of the communication dated 07.06.2008 shows that for reasons recorded therein, the first Respondent came to the conclusion that the benefit of O.T.S. Scheme cannot be extended to the Petitioner.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that some authority must decide whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of O.T.S. and, therefore, the Reserve Bank of India should be directed to inquire into the application dated 07.10.2013.

¶29

We have considered the submissions. The Petitioner is claiming

¶30

the benefit of O.T.S. Scheme under the G.R. Dated 10.03.2008. For reasons recorded in the communication dated 07.06.2008, the first Respondent rejected the application of the Petitioner. The Petitioner slept over the matter till 2013 and filed proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which was not maintainable. The

3 of 4

wp10252.13

krs

grievance in the letter dated 07.10.2013 addressed by the Petitioner is as regards rejection of the application made by the Petitioner in 2008.

¶35

There is nothing placed on record to show that as on today any O.T.S. Scheme is available which can be applied to the Petitioner.

¶36

Thus, the Petitioner has slept for a considerably long time. Considering the conduct of the Petitioner, this is not a case where in writ jurisdiction, interference can be made. The petition is accordingly rejected.

¶37

4 of 4

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale v. Col. R. D. Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale v. Col. R. D. Nikam Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Makai Shikshan Prasarak Va Sharir Savardhak Mandal and Anr. Vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors.

Sindhubai Namdeo Vhatkar and Ors. Vs the Revenue Minister, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Shivputra Shankar Karambali and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Maruti Bala Mane Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale Vs the Kalyan Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd, Satara Branch and Ors.

Pundalik Bahirji Ingale Vs the Karad Janata Sah. Bank Ltd. and Ors.