- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the Rohtak Central Cooperative Bank Limited (first respondent) to refund a sum of Rs. 10,77,670/- deposited by them, on the ground that the first respondent has lost the litigation up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. It has remained undisputed that the petitioner firm availed the loan of Rs. 26,15,400/- in 1995. The rate of interest mentioned in the sanction order was 17% per annum or as fixed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)/National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)/Registrar Cooperative Societies (RCS) from time to time. The petitioner firm filed a petition under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for brevity, 'the Act') before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Haryana (third respondent) on the ground that the rate of interest has been reduced from time to time but the first respondent did not ratably introduced reduction in the rate of interest to be charged from the petitioner. The said petition was decided in favour of the petitioner firm, vide order dated 30.1.2004, holding that the bank was entitled to recover only an amount of Rs. 21,30,206/- as principal amount and Rs. 1,19,601/- as interest as on 31.12.2003. The total amount comes to Rs. 23,22,807/-(P-2).
(2.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first respondent filed an appeal under Section 114 of the Act before the Government (second respondent), who upheld the order dated 30.1.2004. The first respondent still challenged the order dated 19.1.2005 (P-3) passed by the Government (second respondent) by filing CWP No. 15277 of 2005. The aforesaid petition was disposed of on 2.2.2006 (P-4) by observing as under:- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, it is clear that a sum of Rs. 24,43,000/- has been paid to the Bank and that No Dues Certificate has also been given by the Bank to the said respondent. Mr. Hooda, however, contends that this entire exercise was as a result of fraud and that a huge amount still remained to be recovered from respondent No. 3. In the light of the fact that No Dues Certificate has been given by the Bank to respondent No. 3, it is not possible for us to go into the question of fraud in these proceedings. We accordingly relegate the petitioner to such other remedy as may be available to it to vindicate the claim. The writ petition is disposed off accordingly. "
(3.) The case of the petitioner before the authorities as well as before this Court was that a sum of Rs. 24,43,000/-, which was found due to the bank and it was paid on 26.7.2004 and a No Dues Certificate was stated to have been obtained. The first respondent had levelled allegation of fraud and accordingly they were relegated to any such remedy as may be available to it to vindicate the claim. It has come on record that a sum of Rs. 10,77,670/- was paid on 24.9.2007 when the first respondent was pursuing its SLP No. 19918 of 2006 before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. On the deposit of the aforesaid amount, the first respondent had released the document of mortgaged property to the petitioner, as is evident from the reply to the legal notice dated 28.1.2010 (P-8). Accordingly, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 6.4.2009 (P-6), which was much later than the deposit of the sum of Rs. 10,77,670/-, which was deposited on 24.9.2007. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court.;