Only on non adherence, procedure under RBI Circular,borrower liable for default
Only on non adherence, procedure under RBI Circular,borrower liable for default
Present petition filed seeking annulment of notices issued by Bank, informing petitioners that their names had been included in list of wilful defaulters & circulated to credit information companies. HC held that, members of Grievance Redressal Committee, while discharging their duties as such, have to temporarily suspend their allegiance to bank that employs them & display impartiality that any adjudicatory body is obliged to possess.-000177
1. The father of petitioner had been appointed as a whole time director of a company having registered office at Kolkata.
2. Company had provided him two flats as free accommodation in Mumbai while he was looking after the business of Mumbai branch of the company.
3. He died in harness in 1984
4. Since then the petitioner had been illegally and wrongfully using and occupying said flats and despite repeated requests by the company, she failed to hand over the possession of same.
5. The company filed a complaint under section 630 against the petitioner.
6. The Magistrate at Kolkata issued process against the petitioner.
7. Petitioner filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the proceedings contending that since the disputed property was located at Mumbai, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction within the scope and ambit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to entertain the complaint or to hold the trial, merely because the complainant company had its office in Kolkata.
8. The Magistrate rejected such petition holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the case.
9. Petitioner preferred revision against the said order which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.
10. On revision application:
HC held as under:
11. The instant petition has been filed on the same and identical grounds on which the first revision was filed.
12. In the case of Dharampal v. Smt. Ramshri AIR 1993 SC 1361 the Supreme Court held that Session Judge's powers under section 397(3) Cr.P.C. while hearing the revision, are equivalent to that of High Court and any one cannot avail of two opportunities of filing revision under the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. When once his revision was found unsubstantial by the Sessions Judge under section 397(1) Cr.P.C., then the remedy under section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred and he cannot file this petition.
13. So in view of the above, this petition is legally barred and is not maintainable under section 482 Cr.P.C.
14. The facts of the present case do not warrant any interference under section 482 Cr.P.C. being a second revision under the garb of section 482 Cr.P.C. The present petition is neither maintainable nor is there any merit in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on both counts, i.e., on the question of maintainability as well as on merits.
Case Reference-Santanu Ghosh v. State Bank of India
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
×
