NATIONAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Eshwarappa and another …
Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Eshwarappa and another …
Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Eshwarappa and another …
Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank & others
… Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank & others
… Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank & others
… Respondents
Reserve
Bank of
Versus
Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank & others
… Respondents
Deposit
Insurance & Credit
Guarantee
Corporation …Petitioner
Versus
Budh Ram & others … Respondents
The
Cooperative
Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
M.T. Muttappa and another … Respondents
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Bhimsena Tukakramsa
Miskin
… Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Subhas
… Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Ramdas Bhosle … Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Eshwarappa Shettar …
Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Saraswati R. Bhosle …
Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Eshwarappa Ari
… Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Savitri Desaigoudar …
Respondent
The Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd. …Petitioner
Versus
Eshwarappa Ari
… Respondent
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.B. SHAH,
PRESIDENT
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER
MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER
For the
Petitioner s
(In RPs Nos.2528-2530: Mr.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
3263,
3312, 3313, 3326 Mr. H.S. Parihar, Mr. D.N. Tripathy
and 3458/2006 Advocates
For
Petitioners in : Mr.
Shanth Kr. V. Mahale,
Advocate
(in RPs Nos.462, 463,
2254-2256 , 2746-2748/2006
For the
Respondents : Mr.
S.J. Amith, Advocate with
(n RPs nos.2528-2530,
: Mrs. Kiran
Suri, Advocate
2746,
2748/2006)
For
Respondent
(in RP no.3458/06) :
Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate
(Amicus curiae)
For Respondent
(in RP No.2591/2007) : Mr.
S.K. Sharma, Advocate
For
Respondent no.79 : Mr.
Duli Chand & Mr. Manish
K., Advocates
26.11.2007
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
In all these matters the question which requires consideration is what should be the time limit or the period during which operation of the direction issued under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 should remain in force? Whether it can remain in force for years together or for a reasonable period.
In our view, when no time limit is
prescribed under the law, concept of reasonable period is adopted/accepted
by the law laid down by the
The result
would be, after lapse of reasonable time the RBI either should cancel the licence of the Bank or, if possible, lift the ban so that
Bank can be revived and made functional.
R.P. No. 3458 of 2006
Learned
senior advocate appearing on behalf of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) states that in
the present case, Liquidator for the City Cooperative Bank Ltd. was appointed on
4.10.2006 and till today the Liquidator has not submitted the list of the
creditors. He further submits that RBI
has passed an order under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 on
23.3.2001 and thereafter the licence of the City
Cooperative Bank Ltd. was cancelled on 23.10.2004.
Considering
the aforesaid facts, the Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation
has to pay upto Rs.1 lac to
the complainant, Budh Ram. Interest would be payable till the date of
cancellation i.e. 23.10.2004.
R.P. No. 2428 of 2006
Learned
senior advocate for the RBI submits that the Bangalore Southared
Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. has merged with Shamrao Vitthal Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 26.2.2007.
In
this view of the matter, order passed by the State Commission does not call for
any interference. It would be open to
the complainants to recover the amount awarded by the State Commission from the concerned Bank by executing
the same, if required.
R.P. No. 3263 of 2006
Learned senior advocate for the RBI
submits that in the case of Jila Sahakari
Kendriya Bank, a direction under Section 35A of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was issued only on 28.6.2005.
R.P. No. 462 of 2006
In the case of Maratha Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hubli, Karnataka, a
direction under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 was
issued on 4.2.2004 and show cause notice for cancellation of licence was sent on 4.4.2006.
It
is submitted by the learned counsel for the RBI that time was granted by the
RBI because Bank’s financial position improved.
Review process on the basis of the facts
has restarted and the final order would be passed before the end of
February, 2008.
We appreciate the assistance rendered
by Ms. Surekha Raman, Advocate as amicus curiae. Registry is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to meet her out of pocket expenses because the matter
was required to be heard and re-heard again and again.
Stand over to 28.2.2008 for final
disposal.
……………………………………J.
(M.B.
SHAH)
PRESIDENT
………………………………………
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
………………………………………
(ANUPAM
DASGUPTA)
MEMBER
SG/31-48