Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.) THERE are heights of dishonesty with certain litigants such as the petitioner resort to, and which besides causing gross wastage of judicial time also causes unnecessary expenditure to a respondent and which in this case is Punjab and Sind Bank. This I am saying so in view of the present facts of the case which are detailed below for dismissing this writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner by this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the relief of direction against the respondent/Bank to quash the order dated 20.4.2012 by which the amounts due to the petitioner towards terminal dues were adjusted towards various amounts due from the petitioner towards various loans repayable to the respondent/Bank. This letter dated 20.4.2012 reads as under: - "PUNJAB & SIND BANK2400 HARDAYAL SINGHKAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI20.04.2012MR.PARAMJIT SINGH KHURANAK -330, SWAMI DAYANAD COLONYSARAI ROHILLANEW DELHI 110007 Dear Sir Reg: Your Terminal Dues (PF 04180) We have received amount of Rs.1175114.00 (Eleven Lacs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Fourteen Only) vide IBR no.390967 dated 10.04.2014 through our higher office vide their letter dated 10.04.2012. As per their instructions we have appropriated the same on as per following detail. Term Loan (NSC Loan) 47972 Rs.7961 (Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty One Only) CA OD (Staff) 28037 Rs.331024.15 (Three Lacs Thirty One Thousand Twenty Four and Paisa 15 only) Term Loan 30180 Rs.836128.85 (Rupees Eight Lacs thirty Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Eight Lacs and paisa 85 only) You are further advised to adjust the remaining in the accounts of Late S.Santokh Singh and Late Smt. Pritam Kaur at the earliest along with up to date interest, as on date amount outstanding in the accounts are as under: - Term Loan account no. 30180 Rs.25,68,684.14 Interest Charged upto 31.03.2012 (of late S.Santokh Singh) Term Loan account no.30132 outstanding in ledger + interest is Rs.188112786/ - as on 28.02.2012 (Late Smt. Pritam Kaur) Yours faithfullySd/ -Dy. General Manager" The respondent/Bank has filed a counter -affidavit and in which it is stated in paras 6 and 7 that three amounts under three separate accounts are due from the petitioner, and of which is the one term loan account in which a sum of Rs.8,36,128.85 was due on account of a loan taken by the mother of the petitioner, and after the death of the mother, the petitioner signed the loan documentation taking over the loan in his name. The relevant aspects with respect to the dues against the petitioner which stood partly adjusted by the respondent/Bank are mentioned in paras 6 to 9 of the counter -affidavit, and which read as under: - "6. That on superannuation of the petitioner, his terminal dues amounting to Rs.11,75,114/ - were transferred from HO(PF) Department to the Branch Office Karol Bagh. The break -up of the terminal dues is as under: 7. That the above terminal dues have been appropriated by the respondent Bank under intimation to the petitioner vide communication dated 20.04.2012. The amounts have been adjusted as under: 8. That the petitioner has also stood as a guarantor in term loan account in the name of late S.Santok Singh bearing A/c No. 30180, wherein the amount outstanding with interest charged as on 31.03.2012 is Rs.25,68,684.15p. The Term Loan account bearing No. 30132 in the name of Late Smt. Pritam Kaur bears and outstanding debit balance of Rs.18,81,12,786/ - as on 28.02.2012. 9. That since the petitioner assumed his liability in the above noted loan account of late Smt. Pritam Kaur, as the principal borrower upon her death and his liability has also been joint and several with the principal borrower as guarantor in the other loan account, therefore, the respondent Bank has appropriated and partly adjusted the loan accounts in the manner as set out hereinabove, under intimation to the petitioner"
(3.) IT is therefore clear that the respondent/Bank has partly adjusted the amounts which were due to the petitioner against the claim of the loan accounts of the respondent/Bank against the petitioner, and total of which is not satisfied, and therefore the respondent/Bank may have to possibly file recovery proceedings. Therefore, under no circumstances it can be held that actions of the respondent/Bank are illegal and unjustified in adjusting the terminal dues of the petitioner against dues payable by the petitioner to the respondent/Bank towards various loan amounts.;