Appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating is available under the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004 and the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA in the case of Shree Nath Pathak Vs. The Union of India through the Principal Secretary (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10116 of 2021)
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has asked for the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/s, and order/s commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner’s maturity amount/due amount forthwith, which was deposited by the petitioners to the respondent at the office of respondent in the name of investment, as well as any consequential benefit that the petitioner is entitled to in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has requested for an order directing respondent to pay interest at 18 percent per annum on the sum invested by the petitioner until the date of final payment, as well as compensation for the respondent company’s mental and economic harassment. The petitioner has requested that a criminal case be filed against the respondent for his intentional omissions and commissions and a direction to take appropriate legal action against respondent for their breach of contract and cheating with the petitioners.
The petitioner has an equally effective remedy under the terms of the Bihar Protection of Depositors’ Interests (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002, and the corresponding Rule of 2004, and the concerns stated in the current lis can be simply adjudicated by the authority stipulated as in case of Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. the Union of India and Ors dismissed a similar petition. As a result, the petitioner is free to pursue the remedies set forth in the Act and according to Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned Additional Advocate General, if such a petition is filed within four weeks, the problem of limitation will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits.
The petition is dismissed, and the petitioner has four weeks to pursue the Act’s remedies and the issue of limitation, if any, will not prevent the matter from being decided on its merits. The parties will be given the opportunity to record any necessary documents and materials, if so requested and desired. Petitioner, through counsel, agrees to fully cooperate and not take any unnecessary adjournments. Within six months of taking recourse to remedies under the Act, the appropriate authority shall decide the matter on the merits, in accordance with natural justice principles, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi