The Bombay High Court in the case Bank of India v. Magnifico Minerals Private Limited and Anr observed and has recently pulled up Bank of India for its ‘lackadaisical attitude’ in dealing with public money, wherein court observed that nationalized banks should be made conscious of the fact that their negligence can cause a great deal of loss to the public. The division bench comprising of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Kamal Khata observed and has refused to condone a delay of 579 days in filing of a commercial appeal against a November 2020 order. The court stated that the officers or staff of public sector banks/N ationalised Banks and public undertakings are insensitive about the fact that they are working for the public and dealing with public money. Thus, their lackadaisical attitude puts the public money at grave risk and consequently the economy of the country. While applicant who being a Nationalized Bank, expects the court to protect the interest of the public, they continue to be lackadaisical and negligent and have taken the Courts for granted, which in the opinion of the courts is required to be stopped. However, it has been noted by the court that the higher authorities of BOI did not take any action against the staff for neglecting the matter The court stated that the errant staff and officers need to be pulled up and made accountable. It being the high time that the public sector banks or Nationalized Banks should be taking things seriously and be made conscious of the fact that their negligence can cause a great deal of loss to the public. In its application the BOI stated for condonation claimed that its advocate did not file the appeal because he was suffering from cancer and got bedridden. It has also been claimed by the bank that it came to know this only in August 2022 and then engaged a new advocate. The counsel, Advocate O. A. Das appearing for the Bank of India submitted that it should not be punished due to the mistake of its advocate. It has also been stated by him that even he was unwell for some time and this was part of the reason for delay. Therefore, the court was not convinced by the reasons given by BOI. Adding to it, the court stated that it is a nationalised bank and has a team of people for legal matters as well as technology to communicate with people through phone, emails, SMS, WhatsApp etc. Further, the court noted that no steps taken by the BOI to follow up with the previous advocate were given in the application. Also, it has not been explained by BOI how it suddenly came to know in August 2022. The court observed that BOI took more than a month to engage a new lawyer in September 2022, despite of the delay. It has been stated by the court that BOI did not act in a bonafide manner and treated the master casually. It should also been made more careful dealing with public money being a public sector bank. This court did not see any benefit in awarding cost or penalising the responsible officers of BOI. Accordingly, the court refused to condone the delay on account of insincere efforts made by BOI and hence the court dismissed the appeal.
