Rajesh Thakur Vs Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Uco Bank and Another

¶1

2025:HHC:1107

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 3861 of 2024 with

¶4

CWP No.3859 of 2024

¶5

Date of Decision: 04.01.2025

¶6

____________________ 1.CWP No. 3861 of 2024 Rajesh Thakur	________________________________ …….Petitio Versus	___ ner
Chairman-cum- Managing	Director & Ors … Responde	nts
2.CWP No. 3859 of 2024 Rakesh Thakur	…….Petitio Versus	ner
Chairman-cum- Managing	Director & Ors … Responde	nts
____________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice San Whether approved for rep	_______________________________ deep Sharma, Judge. orting?¹	___
For the Petitioner(s):	Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocat with Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate.	e
For the Respondent(s):	Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in both petitions.	for the
	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advo Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, De Advocate General, for respondent No.3	and cate puty .
_____________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge	_______________________________ (oral):	___

¶7

Since common questions of facts as well as law are

¶8

involved in the above captioned petitions and similar reliefs have been

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

2025:HHC:1107

¶12

claimed, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

¶13

By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for the reliefs, which are similar, as such, relief prayed for in CWP No.3861 of 2024 is reproduced herein below:-

¶14

“ i) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to release the amount due to the petitioner against the FDR No.4339, dated 8.09.2007, FDR No.4321, dated 9.08.2007 and FDR No.4312, dated 9.8.2007 with upto date maturity amount in the bank account of the petitioner bearing No. 120023850195, IFSC Code CNRB 0003056, Canara Bank, New Shimla-9(HP) immediately in the interest of justice.”

¶15

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, who are government contractors, as has been highlighted in the petitions, which are duly supported by affidavits, is that FDRs i.e. FDR No.4339, amounting to Rs. 1, 50,000/- FDR No.4321, amounting to Rs. 14, 10,000/-, FDR No.4312, amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/-, FDR No.4347, amounting to Rs. 47,21,000, FDR No.4355, amounting to Rs. 50, 000/- and FDR No.4371, amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- furnished by the petitioners have been illegally withheld by the respondent-Bank. Though, repeatedly petitioners requested the respondent-bank to release the FDRs, but same are not being released on the pretext that FDRs were kept as a security/bank guarantee qua the construction

¶16

3

¶17

2025:HHC:1107

¶18

work allotted by the Public Works Department in favour of the petitioners.

¶19

Respondent-bank, in its reply, has specifically averred that since FDRs, sought to be released, are being claimed by Public Works Department, there is no occasion, if any, for the respondentbank to release the same in favour of the petitioners, especially when same stand pledged in the name of Public Works Department.

¶20

Since Public Works Department was not arrayed as party respondent, this Court having taken note of nature of controversy as well as reliefs prayed for, impleaded Public Works Department as party respondent No.3, in both the petitions, which pursuant to direction contained in order dated 18.12.2024 has filed reply under the signatures of Executive Engineer, Outer Seraj Division, HPPWD, Nirmand, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. It is averred in the reply filed by respondent No. 3 that petitioners being registered contractors were awarded various work by the Public Works Department for execution and during the execution of such works, petitioners furnished bank guarantees/FDRs, which are subject matter of the present petitions. Since petitioners failed to complete the awarded work and raised dispute, matter came to be referred to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the Department, wherein petitioners agreed to refund the amount received by them on account

¶21

4

¶22

2025:HHC:1107

¶23

of mobilization and machinery advance from the respondents. After negotiations, it was agreed by the petitioners that they would return an amount of Rs. 65,13,141/- in total qua two works to the Public Works Department, the committee recommended the matter to the Departmental Litigation Monitoring Committee at the government level and a meeting was convened under the chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary (PWD) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Afore committee approved the recommendation made by Grievance Redressal Committee and as such, now petitioners are under obligation to pay total sum of Rs. 65,13,141/- (Annexure R-1 and R- 2). It is averred in the reply that since respondent-PWD is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 65,13,141/- from the petitioners and petitioners have agreed to pay the aforesaid amount, interest of respondent No.3 is required to be protected.

¶24

Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, after having perused the reply filed by respondent No.3, on the instructions of his clients, fairly states that sum of Rs. 65,13,141/- agreed to be paid by the petitioners may be adjusted and paid to the PWD out of the amount of FDRs pledged in favour of the Department and remaining amount may be ordered to be released in favour of the petitioners.

¶25

5

¶26

2025:HHC:1107

¶27

Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 fairly states that on account of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived interse parties, the respondent-bank shall have no objection in releasing the FDRs.

¶28

Consequently, in view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release the FDRs in question after deducting sum of Rs. 65,13,141/-, which shall be paid/released in favour of the Public Works Department. Needless to say, remaining amount qua the FDRs, as detailed hereinabove, shall be paid/released to the petitioners with upto date interest, by remitting the same in their saving bank accounts, details whereof are given in prayer clause of the respective petitions

¶29

Learned Additional Advocate General undertakes to make available details of the account Head of respondent - Department to respondent-bank, enabling it to remit sum of Rs. 65, 13,141/- in the same, within a period of one week. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

January 04, 2025 (shankar)

Rajesh Thakur v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Uco Bank and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Thakur v. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Uco Bank and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shree Ganesh Minerals and Chemicals Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pyara Lal Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Hira Singh Chandel Vs State of Hp and Others

Roop Singh and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kishori Lal Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Madan Lal Vs Hrtc and Others