SAURABH SYNTHETICS PVT LTD Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Saurabh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra (Complainants) have filed the complaint against the Branch Manager, M/s. Orient Bank of Commerce, Bhupalganj, Pech Area, Bhilwara and Managing Director, M/s. Orient Bank of Commerce, B. Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) before the State Commission on 17.2.1990.

(2.) The complainants have Current Account No.1221 with opposite party No.1 at Bhilwara. No.1 informed the complainants that no withdrawal would be permitted from the current A/c No.1221. The complainants made request for it, but they were not allowed to operate the current account by opposite party No.1. No.1 demanded some documents from the complainants vide letter dated 28.8.1989 for permitting them the operation of the account. The complainants sent the documents. The complainants also wanted to have new cheque book and statement of account from No.1. No.1 refused to give the cheque book informing them that the operation the account has been stopped. It is said that there was balance of Rs.76,247.92 in the current account and stopping of the operation of the account and withdrawal of money from it was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. According to them this act of opposite party No.1 constituted deficiency in service and improper business behaviour. It was alleged that the amount of Rs.76,247.92p has been unauthorisedly withheld and opposite party No.1 is using them. The complaint dated 24.1.1990 was filed claiming a sum of Rs.1,93,247.92p and detailed in para 4 of the complaint inclusive of Rs.76,247.92p which were in the current account. The complainants submitted photo stat copies of the letters Ex. P.1. to P.5. In all eight documents were submitted.

(3.) The opposite parties submitted the version of the case opposing the complaint. The preliminary objections about the maintainability of the complaint were raised. On merits it was stated that the current account was opened on 15.4.1988 by the two directors of the company Shri Vijay Heda and complainant No.2 Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra and both the directors were authorised to operate the account. It is said that a letter was sent by opposite party No.1 to complainant No.1 in reply to the letter dated 24.5.1988 stating that one of the directors has informed the bank not to allow any withdrawal from the current account of M/s. Saurabh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and as such withdrawal of the account will not be allowed. Copy of the letter received from Shri Vijay Heda, Director was enclosed in which it was stated that some dispute between the directors of the above company has arisen and for that reason a request was made to opposite party No.1 not to allow any withdrawal to complainant No.1 strictly from 24.6.1988 till further instructions. A notice was sent by the advocate to opposite party No.1 and its copy to opposite party No.2 dated 15.7.1989 that if withdrawal from a sum of Rs.76,247.92 lying in the credit of the Company as on 26.5.1988 is not allowed, a legal action will be initiated. Complainant No.2 wrote letters from time to time and their was correspondence regarding the appointments of a new Director. Copy of the resolution was demanded which was sent. It was stated by the opposite parties that Shri Vijay Heda, Director wrote that complainant No.2 and Shri Vijay Heda are two partners and so a sum of Rs.38,100/- may be paid by cheque to Miss Lalita Sawa and, thereafter, no amount will be demanded from the deposited amount. When these letters were received from the complainants as well as Shri Vijay Heda, other Director of the company, the bank inferred that there was dispute between the directors and according to practice of banking and in good faith no amount was paid either to the complainants or Shri Vijay Heda and they were informed to get their matter settled through the Court. The claim for compensation was denied. Ten documents as detailed in the list of documents were submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.