"It is quite distressing to find out that a scheduled bank like Oriental Bank of Commerce is engaging itself in fighting a legal battle on trivial ground of disputing its liability to pay the rent at the revised rate," Justice Kailash Gambhir said.
The Delhi high court has lambasted a nationalised bank for 'harassing' a city resident by refusing to pay for his commercial premises let out to it, which forced him to move courts to recover the rent.
"It is quite distressing to find out that a scheduled bank like Oriental Bank of Commerce is engaging itself in fighting a legal battle on trivial ground of disputing its liability to pay the rent at the revised rate," said Justice Kailash Gambhir in a recent judgement.
"It is not expected of the government undertakings or any government corporation or scheduled bank to take stand like an unscrupulous litigant in a court of law," he added.
The court dismissed the bank's appeal against a subordinate civil court ruling which ordered it to pay the enhanced rent to Ramprakash Sherawat, owner of the Mahipalpur-based commercial premises.
Sherawat had let out the premises to the bank through a lease deed in 1990 that was valid till December 2000. The bank continued to occupy his premises beyond December 2000 despite lapse of the lease deed, which could be renewed only in March 2003 with an enhanced rent.
It was also stipulated that the bank would pay the enhanced rent with a retrospective effect from January 2001.
The bank, however, refused to keep its words, forcing Sherawat to approach the subordinate civil court, which ordered the bank to pay the enhanced rent from January 2001.
The bank subsequently moved the Delhi high court against the lower court ruling.
"It is a common perception that the banks are reliable establishments which do not harass the lessor for trivial issues.
"This court, however, is constrained to observe that the scheduled bank like OBC has embroiled itself in frivolous litigation on trivial issues leading to vexatious and galling litigation resulting in waste of judicial time," the high court said.
Dismissing the bank's plea, the court said, "It is rather expected of a bank not to compel the lessor to chase it for payment of his dues and then hassle him to approach the court of law."
"This attitude of the bank is certainly deprecated by this court and it is expected of the bank to conduct its dealings more responsibly in future."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}