Calcutta High CourtReserve Bank Of India & Ors vs Rajib Munsi & Anr on 18 March, 2015Author:Manjula ChellurBench:Manjula ChellurAPO 431 of 2014
                                   G.A.3535 of 2014
                                   W.P.700 of 2012

                             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                     Original Side


                             RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
                                        Versus
                                  RAJIB MUNSI & ANR.

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR

The Hon'ble JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

Date : 18th March, 2015.


          For the Appellants : Mr. Anjan Kumar Paul, Advocate

          For the Respondents : Mr. Debjyoti Basu withMr. S.Dewanji, Advocates


                       THE     COURT    :      Heard   learned      counsel    for   the

      appellants as well as respondents. The entire issue arose

      on account of some wrong calculation and intimation of

      the     wrongly calculated amount                     to the respondents-writ

      petitioners by the appellant Bank. It is not in dispute

      that in response to a scheme floated by the appellant

      Bank,        a    notice         dated     17-4-2012      was     sent    to    the

      respondents-writ                petitioners          demanding     a     sum    of

      Rs.12,58,825/- towards one time settlement. Apparently,

      25%     of       the     said     amount       was    deposited    within      time

      schedule.         Subsequently,           by         letter   dated     13-7-2012,2appellant-Bank       issued       a      notice      revising       the    amount      to

Rs.17,42,420/- wherein they had indicated that already

communicated        to         the        respondents-writ                petitioners

regarding the mistake committed by them in calculating

O.T.S. amount as they had left out interest that was to

be     calculated        after       treating         the        account       as     Non-

Performing Assets.Dispute seems to have arisen from this letter dated

13-7-2012.       According       to      the    respondent-writ            petitioner

No.1, he never received the letter dated 5-7-2012 and

only after depositing             25% of the amount indicated in the

letter    dated     17-4-2012,           the        Bank    had    put     him       under

notice.It appears from records that payment of 25% had to

be made on or before 31-7-2012 and the balance amount

could be paid as indicated in the notice wherein the

borrower    had     option       of      paying      in     12    months       but    with

interest    and     if    he     chose         to    take    the       concession       of

interest,    he     would         have         to    pay    within       six    months.

Apparently, the balance amount came to be deposited in

September,       2012.    According            to    the    appellant-Bank,            the

writ    petitioner-respondent              No.1        was       not    entitled      for

benefit     of    O.T.S.         since      it       had     not       paid     25%     of

Rs.17,42,420/-       but       paid       25%         of     Rs.12,58,825/-            and3similar was the situation with regard to balance 75% of

the amount.Aggrieved         by    this         stand    of    the   appellant-Bank,

respondents-writ petitioners have filed the writ petition

and learned Judge opining that the writ petitioners in

strict compliance of the Bank's letter dated 17-4-2012

had    offered       the       payment,         therefore,         there    was   no

justification        on        the   part       of    appellant-Bank        to    re-

calculate or modify the figure of O.T.S.

        We    have    gone       through        the    papers       and   heard   the

matter on three occasions. We noticed that after 17-4-

2012 prior to deposit of 25% of Rs.12,58,825/- according

to    the    appellant-Bank              a   letter    communicating        revised

amount dated 5-7-2012 was sent by them as indicated in

the   subsequent      letter.            However,      we    find    from   records

produced       by      the           appellant-Bank,              there     is     no

acknowledgement indicating that on 5-7-2012 they had sent

any such letter to the writ petitioner-respondent. Prior

to 31-7-2012, that is, the last date to deposit 25% of

the outstanding amount in order to obtain the benefit of

O.T.S.Scheme, the Bank did intimate the revised figure of

Rs.17,42,420/-. It is not in dispute that this revised

figure was intimated to the respondents-writ petitioners

prior to 31-7-2012. After payment of 25% of the amount,4the revised figure, according to the writ petitioners-

respondents, was communicated to them but it was before

31-7-2012.We provided an opportunity to the respondents-writ

petitioners to verify the accounts maintained in the Bank

whether Rs.12,68,825/- included the interest calculated

on the balance outstanding              after treating the account as

N.P.A.       So far as this fact is concerned, there is no

dispute that          there is mistake in calculation of the

amount. The fact remains that 25% of Rs.17,42,420/- was

not   deposited       on    or       before    31-7-2012    and   even     in

September      2012        the       balance    amount     deposited     with

reference to Rs.12,58,825/- and not Rs.17,42,420/-. If

the respondents-writ petitioners intended to take benefit

of O.T.S.Scheme they ought to have deposited the balance

amount under protest and filed the writ petition so that

we could have considered the payment as having been made

within time as per O.T.S.Scheme of the Bank.                      However,

there seems to be some inadvertence or negligence on the

part of the officers of appellant-Bank too which led to

this situation. Since the Bank is dealing with public

money, everyone concerned must be responsible to see that

the   bank    is   not     burdened      with    losses    on   account    of

mistake on the part of their officers as long as the5demand      indicates   correct    calculation    in    terms    of

O.T.S.Scheme. We cannot find fault with the calculation

of Rs.17,42,430/- as subsequently made by the Bank.If the respondents-writ petitioners intends to take

the benefit of O.T.S.Scheme, whatever balance amount they

have to pay on the sum of Rs.17.42.420/-              after taking

benefit of 15% rebate together with interest thereon as

indicated     in   O.T.S.Scheme    till   date   of    payment   be

calculated and deposited positively on or before 15-4-

2015.Both the appeal and the application are disposed of

accordingly.( MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.)



                                   ( JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.)




 Rsg
 AR(CR)