NAVTEJ SINGH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Syndicate Bank, respondent No. 1, floated a scheme known as Pigmy Deposit Scheme. The petitioners made deposits of their savings under that scheme for about a year and half. The said scheme was modified and the modified scheme was enforced with effect from July 5, 1982. As it was on some counts disadvantageous to the petitioners, they filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the modified scheme and for a direction to the respondents to accept the deposits under the original scheme.

(2.) Under the modified scheme, the depositors have been given option either to continue to make deposits or close their accounts. The rights and obligations between the parties are obviously contractual and cannot be suitably dealt with in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, urged that the petitioners have acted to their disadvantage on the assurance of the respondents by making deposits and the latter are, therefore, estopped from changing the scheme unilaterally. For this contention, he has taken shelter behind the principle of promissory estoppel recognised and enforced by the Supreme Court in The Union of India and others v. M/s Anglo Afghan Agencies etc., 1968 AIR(SC) 718 We are, however, unable to agree with the learned counsel. Firstly, the scheme itself envisages modification by the Bank unilaterally and secondly, the relationship which came into being between the parties was certainly contractual. The Bank by floating the said scheme made an offer to make deposits and the petitioners by filling the requisite forms accepted the offer and a completed contract came into being between the parties. The question of any promissory estoppel in these circumstances does not arise. Even if it may be said that the Bank has committed the breach of the contract by unilaterally modifying the deposit scheme, the petitioners have equally efficacious remedy to claim damages which may have accrued or are likely to accrue because of the modification of the scheme. This petition is consequently dismissed leaving the petitioners to seek their remedy by way of regular suit, if so advised.