9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no power to do so under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 or the Rules framed thereunder. The Kerala High Court in Venu [2015 (3) TMI 438 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has laid down that the bank cannot publish advertisement in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Significantly both the aforesaid two decisions were rendered against the State Bank of India. State Bank of India in spite of such decisions is persisting in continuing with threats of publication of photographs in the newspapers and other places. In view of the ratio in Ujjal Kumar Das and Venu , the order impugned before me dated September 10, 2014 issued by State Bank of India cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of appellant. - WP 1232 of 2014 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest pending the decision in the proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He submits that, the Debts Recovery Tribunal be allowed to decide as to the manner and mode of adjustment of the quantum deposited by his client with the respondent no.1 pursuant to any order that may be passed by the Writ Court. Learned Advocate for the bank submits that, the bank is entitled to publish photographs as the bank has identified the writ petitioners as wilful defaulters under the Master Circular of 2011 of the Reserve Bank of India by its Identification Committee. The bank has also allowed the writ petitioners to make a representation to the Grievance Redressal Committee under the Masters Circular of 2011. The writ petitioners did not make any re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Significantly both the aforesaid two decisions were rendered against the State Bank of India. State Bank of India in spite of such decisions is persisting in continuing with threats of publication of photographs in the newspapers and other places. In view of the ratio in Ujjal Kumar Das (Supra) and Venu (Supra), the order impugned before me dated September 10, 2014 issued by State Bank of India cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. With regard to the offer of payment of a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs per month by the writ petitioners is concerned, I am of the view that, the interest of justice would be subserved by allowing the writ petitioners to deposit a sum of ₹ 20 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
