HON’BLE MR. SUDEB MITRA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Order No. : 06

Date : 09.02.2024

    Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia in CC/55/2022, in which Ld. Concerned DCDRC was pleased to reject the petition of the OP/Revisionist in RP/18/2023/CC/55/2022 filed from the end of the Ld. Counsel, retained by the OP/Revisionist SBI in CC/55/2022, to accept the Vokalatnama in CC/55/2022 filed on 14.07.2023 on behalf of the OP No. 1 of the CC/55/222, executed by the Chief Manager of SBI Purulia Branch i.e. the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022, on the ground that the Vokalatnama of OP No. 1 of CC/55/2022 cannot be executed by the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022 on behalf of the OP No. 1 of CC/55/2022 and that must be executed by the OP No. 1 herself of CC/55/2022 since he is the Chairman of SBI and since he is intending to contest in CC/55/2022 on that locus standi, the OPs of the CC/55/2022 have preferred this Revision Petition on 26.09.2023 U/Sec. 47 (1) (b) of the C.P. Act of 2019, praying for setting aside the impunged order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023, passed in CC/55/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia together with prayer seeking relevant consequential reliefs so that they can file written version in CC/55/2022 and contest in that complaint case filed against the OPs No. 1 and 2 by the complainant/OP of CC/55/222 and RP/18/2023, Amiya Kumar Kundu .

     The factual matrix of CC/55/2022 in gist reveals that over the issue of taking loan in the form of H.B.L. Loan by the complainant of CC/55/2022, Amiya Kumar Kundu from the SBI Purulia Branch, to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/- under the scheme of Govt. of West Bengal dated 13.01.2005, on condition to repay the said loan amount with interest @ of 7.5% P.A. within 180 installments (E.M.I.) @ Rs. 2880/- per E.M.I., the complainant of CC/55/2022 had disputed with the concerned Branch of Purulia SBI over the issue of repayment of residual dues of the said loan amount, borrowed by him from the lender i.e. OP of CC/55/2022 and on the allegation of non-furnishing of statement of A/C in respect of loan being A/C No. 11377567139 taken by the complainant/OP Amiya Kumar Kundu from the OP/Revisionist, and for the purpose of realization of refund of excess amount, taken by the concerned SBI, Purulia Branch, as claimed by Amiya Kumar Kundu, he had filed CC/55/2022 in September, 2022 before the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia U/Sec. 35 of the C.P. Act of 2019, seeking certain additional reliefs as reflected in the prayer portion of CC/55/2022, against the SBI, represented by the Chairman having its office at State Bank of India Bhawan, M.C. Road, Noriman Point, Mumbai 400021 (Maharastra) and SBI, represented by it’s Chief Manager of Purulia Branch, respectively and they are impleaded as the OPs No. 1 and 2 respectively in CC/55/2022 by the complainant in CC/55/2022.

    The case record reflects that the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022 pressed for accepting the Vokalatnama of the OP No. 1 i.e. the Vokalatnama of the Chairman, representing the SBI, executed by the OP No. 2 i.e. SBI represented by the Chief Manager of Purulia Branch of SBI in connection with CC/55/2022.

    This appears that the said prayer of the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022 for accepting the Vokalatnama of the OP No. 1 of CC/55/2022 executed on behalf of the OP No. 1 by the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022 in the said complaint case was not entertained by the Ld. DCDRC and vide the impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed in CC/55/2022, the Ld. DCDRC was pleased to hold on its’ interpretation of Sec. 76 (1) and 77 of the SBI General Regulation 1955 that since the complainant of CC/55/2022 specifically mentioned in CC/55/2022 that the State Bank of India must be represented by the Chairman of SBI in CC/55/2022 and as the Vokalatnama of the Chairman of SBI is not executed by the Chairman of SBI himself but on his behalf, by the Chief Manager of Purulia Branch of SBI in connection with CC/55/2022, so that Vokalatnama, representing the OP No. 1 in the Complainant Case, cannot be accepted in CC/55/2022 and on the basis of such finding and on further ground that since there is absence of empowerment and letter of Authorization granted by the Chairman of SBI to the Chief Manager of SBI, Purulia Branch to execute any Vokalatnama on his behalf (on farmer’s behalf) in CC/55/2022, the prayer for acceptance of Vokalatnama of the Chairman SBI, executed on his behalf by the Chief Manager of SBI, Purulia Branch i.e. the OP No. 2 in CC.55/2022 was not entertained by the Ld. DCDRC vide the impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed in CC/55/2022.

    It appears that this order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed in CC/55/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia is assailed by the Revisionists of this Revision Petition i.e. the OPs of CC/55/2022 on the ground that there was wrong and erroneous interpretation of Sec. 76, 77 of SBI General Regulation Act 1955 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia and that order is contrary to the settled principle of law and, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law, consequently deserves to be set aside according to law.

Point for consideration

It is now to be determined as to whether the impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023, passed in CC/55/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia and assailed in this Revision by the OPs of CC/55/2022 is legally sustainable in the eye of law deserving non interference and on the contrary, it is to be determined and assessed as to whether Revision Petition deserves positive consideration as legally appreciable.

Decision with reasons

The available materials on record of CC/55/2022 lend cogent ground to hold that over the issue of coming into existence of disputes regarding repayment of residual amount of loan, taken by the complainant of CC/55/2022 i.e. the OP of the instant Revision, Amiya Kumar Kundu from it’s lender SBI, the Complainant of CC/55/2022 had filed complaint case against SBI, impleading SBI, to be represented by its’ Chairman and by the Chief Manager of the Purulia Branch of SBI since from the particular Branch of SBI, the complainant had taken the loan amount from his lender SBI.

    Undisputedly and legitimately it can be inferred that the complainant of CC/55/2022, Amiya Kumar Kundu was borrower and SBI was the lender and concerned Purulia Branch of SBI had lent that loan amount to the OP of the instant Revision/Complainant of CC/55/2022, Amiya Kumar Kundu on behalf of SBI and it was determined that the said Revisionist/Complainant was scheduled to repay his loan to his lender SBI at its Purulia Branch since from that particular Branch of SBI, the loan was disbursed to him.

    It is forthcoming from the available materials on record further, that there arose dispute forthcoming over the issue of repayment of residual portion of loan amount by Amiya Kumar Kundu towards SBI and there was claims and counter claims over that issue coming into picture in between Amiya Kumar Kundu and SBI. So, this can again be safely and admittedly taken into consideration that Amiya Kumar Kundu has his claims and he had solicited reliefs from it’s lender SBI and not from anyone else or any individual person besides SBI which is a specific legal entity and lender of the amount taken on loan by the complainant/respondent.

    On close observation of the scopes of the provision of Sec. 76 and 77 of SBI General Regulations this can safely be ascertained from the ambits, extents and scopes of the Sec. 76 and 77 of SBI Regulation of 1955 that any Bank Officer can represent the Chairman of SBI and the SBI itself in any legal proceedings and in dealing with any legal document of SBI on behalf of SBI.

    Here in this case, the OP No. 2 of CC/55/2022 i.e. Chief Manager of SBI, Purulia Branch is representing the OP No. 1 of CC/55/2022 i.e. the Chairman of SBI. No contrary document is forthcoming from the end of the Chairman SBI to object to that action of the Chief Manager SBI, Purulia Branch towards the borrower of SBI i.e. the Complainant of CC/55/2022. No document to bar this action of OP 2 of CC/55/2022 is forthcoming at all. Such type of empowerment/authorization of the Chairman SBI to its officers to work on behalf of the Chairman and for SBI itself is implied in consonance with the scopes of Sec. 76, 77 of SBI General Regulations 1955 and any exception could not be brought forth by the complainant/respondent of CC/55/2022 either before the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia or before this Commission at Asansol to rationalize its stand and the findings of the impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023, passed in CC/55/2022 by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia.

    In this backdrop, having regard to the scopes of Sec. 76 and 77 SBI General Regulation Act of 1955, I do not find any cogent reason to hold that the impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia in CC/55/2022 is legally sustainable and thus entertainable according to law.

    Accordingly the instant Revision succeeds.

   Hence, it is

                       Ordered

    That the instant Revision Petition pressed by the Revisionist/OPs of CC/55/2022 is allowed on contest but without cost.

    The impugned order No. 15 dated 14.07.2023 passed in CC/55/2022 stands set aside on contest.

    Let the OPs of CC/55/2022 be given liberty by the Ld. DCDRC, Purulia to submit the vokalatnama of the OP No. 1 in CC/55/2022, executed by the Chief Manager of the SBI, Purulia Branch on behalf of the OP No. 1 in the CC/55/2022 and contest in CC/55/2022 and let the CC/55/2022 be proceeded further according to the relevant provision of C.P. Act of 2019.

    Let a copy of this order be furnished to the contesting parties of the Revision Petition, forthwith, free of cost as per scopes of the relevant provisions of the C.P. Act of 2019.