IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1018 of 2005
-----------
1. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road, Patna through
its Managing Director.
2. Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Frazer Road,
Patna.
…Petitioners
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Mumbai through its Chairman
2. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bihar, Patna
3. State Bank of India, Maurya Lok Branch, Patna through its Branch
Manager.
…. Respondents
——-
For the Petitioners : M/s M. K. Thakur and Girish Kumar,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
——
05/ 14.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Bihar State
Financial Corporation and its authorities as well as learned counsel for
the respondent-State Bank of India and its authorities.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners
for directing the respondents to compensate the petitioner-
Corporation in terms of pecuniary loss suffered by it as well as loss of
goodwill and prestige and also to pay the cost of litigation due to the
alleged wilful default, negligence, carelessness and non-cooperation
on the part of the respondents themselves.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the
respondents stating that there was no default, negligence, carelessness
and non-cooperation on their part rather the fault was squarely on
the part of petitioner-Corporation.
4. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of
this writ petition, the amount due had already been paid by the
2
respondents to petitioner-Corporation as far back as in March, 2006
itself. However, petitioner-Corporation claims that it has received
the said amount under protest as cost of litigation was not given. It is
also submitted that since petitioner-Corporation was constrained to
file this writ petition due to non-payment of the dues by the
respondents, the latter is duty bound to pay the cost of litigation.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the
amount due has already been paid to petitioner-Corporation about
five years back when this writ petition was merely one year old. In the
said circumstances, there is no occasion for issuing any direction to
the respondents to pay the cost of litigation to petitioner-Corporation.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
MPS/ ( S. N.Hussain, J. )