9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is writ petition on the 25th of October 2016 did not persuade the respondent bank to seek cancellation of the attachment which was informed by the petitioner as being completely wrongful. The attachment was withdrawn only on 7th of March 2017 by the Recovery Officer. The act of attachment of the property is a serious matter. This attachment was effected without taking the basic care and effecting a title search. The attachment remained in force from 14th September, 2015 to 7th March, 2017. Undoubtedly, the present case is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the wrongful act of the respondents and the harassment, insecurity and the trauma which has been faced by 68 year old petitioner for over one and a half years. The narration of facts manifests utmost negligence on the part of the officials of the bank in proceeding against the property of the petitioner thereby permitting the debtors to go scot free. Financial loss would have enured to the bank. The present case is a fit case in which the bank undertakes an inquiry and fixes responsibility for the failure of its employees in ascertaining assets of the debtors as well as wrongly proceeding against the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th pendente lite and future interest @ 19.25% per annum with quarterly rest from 19th January, 2000 till full realisation from the debtors. The certificate also permitted the Bank that in case the debt amount is not recovered from the sale of the "mortgaged and hypothecated properties", then the bank would be entitled to recover the same "by selling the other personal assets/properties of the debtor nos. 1 to 4". 5. Having failed to recover the amount, it appears that the respondent no.1 thereafter sought attachment of the property of the judgment debtor no.2 i.e. the aforementioned Sh. V.K. Bhatnagar. We extract hereunder the specification of the property which the Canara Bank sought to be attached : "SPECIFICATION OF UNCHARGED PROPERTY Land & Building being Plot / House No.H-26/2, Single Portion, Block - H, Plot No.26/2, Sainik Farm, Ward - Deoli, Delhi, owned by Sri Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar, the J.D.No.2" 6. Based on this representation of the respondent no.1 - Bank, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow issued a warrant of attachment dated 14th September, 2015 attaching the said property towards recovery of the above debt of M/s Elcee Education Pvt. Ltd. and the aforedetailed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anara Bank without any cogent and plausible explanation and that the petitioner was being unfairly tormented due to the arbitrary actions of the respondent. The present writ petition came to be filed on 25th October, 2016 and seeks the following prayers : "(i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order for attachment dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow, U.P. in DRC No.40 of 2006; (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release/discharge the petitioner's subject property being House No.H-26/2, Lane W-10, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062, from the purview of the Recovery Proceedings in DRC No.40 of 2006, DRT, Lucknow" 13. Before us, the petitioner has submitted that he is a senior citizen of 68 years who has suffered unwarranted extreme tension on account of this harassment. The petitioner has placed on record details of the treatment which were necessitated and his hospital admission in the Saket Citi Hospital from 20th January to 29th February, 2016 during which period he had to be kept in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, Lucknow, from outside the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the fact remains that the property sought to be attached is located in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Court. A substantial part of the cause of action has thus arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. If, as contended by the petitioner, the petitioner has even not transacted with the respondent bank, the petitioner cannot be refused the relief and relegated to proceedings in Uttar Pradesh, when the property under attachment is located in Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court. In answer to the question asked by the Court to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Bank, Counsel submitted that particulars of the property had been furnished by the respondent bank to the Recovery Officer of the concerned Debt Recovery Tribunal, on the basis of some report of some private investigating agency/detective agency. Prima facie, the petitioner has disclosed materials to show that the order of attachment is the result of mistaken identity. Prima facie, the petitioner is a resident of Delhi, whereas the concerned judgment debtor is a resident of Lucknow. The copies of the Voter's Identity Cards a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been ailing with serious medical ailments as well. The action of attachment of its property has had extremely drastic consequences. It is providential that despite his fragile health, he has been able to fight for his rights. 20. It was not as if the respondent-bank stopped at obtaining the warrant of attachment or its pasting at the premises. The petitioner has informed that the same was followed up by declaration of the proclamation and announcement of the attachment by use of loudspeaker in the colony. The petitioner and his family must have suffered extreme mortification and loss of face in the community. 21. Despite the petitioner having filed objections in September, 2015 itself and having made representations to the Canara Bank on 29th September, 2015, no effort has been admittedly made by the bank, which has huge resources at its command, to have immediately ascertained the correct position regarding the property. 22. It is obvious that having obtained the attachment, the bank exhibited its position of supremacy in taking no action at all to give some relief or succour to the distressed petitioner, which per se would have caused extreme insecurity in the mind of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y vide order dated 14/09/2015 now admitting that was done by mistake. In view of the above, property attached vide order dated 14/09/2015 is hereby released. As an innocent person PPO suffered due to wrong attachment, CH Bank is directed publish the extract of this order that the property attached vide order dated 14/09/2015 was wrongly attached by mistake of facts provided by the CH Bank and is duly released by the undersigned. Further publication must contain clear specification of property attached and also regret to the P.P.O. Ch Bank is hereby warn to be cautious while filing any affidavit before the undersigned otherwise it will attract action as per law. List on 24/03/2017 by strict compliance by the CH Bank." (Emphasis by us) 25. It would, therefore, appear that so far as the prayer made by the petitioner for quashing of the order of attachment dated 14th September, 2015 and consequential reliefs/discharge of the property no. H-26/2, Sainik Farm, Ward-Deoli, Delhi from the purview of the recovery proceedings in DRC No.40/2006 in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow is concerned, the same stands satisfied. However, the petitioner has prayed for such further orders as this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiny publication in a corner of the Financial Express restore the petitioner's loss of reputation and compensate the petitioner's loss of reputation and the humiliation which he would have suffered by the pasting of the order of attachment, its proclamation and its announcement using a loudspeaker-public addressal mode? 30. Given the above narration of facts, we are satisfied that the action of the Bank touted as a "mistake", was not a genuine mistake but was a deliberate act which they have stood by even after they were put to notice that they had illegally attached the petitioner's property. The respondents did not withdraw the attachment even when the petitioner filed objection on 14th September, 2015 against the order of attachment before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. The petitioner attempted follow-up with the detailed reminder dated 29th September, 2015 to the Canara Bank as well as the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal which was of no avail. Even the filing of this writ petition on the 25th of October 2016 did not persuade the respondent bank to seek cancellation of the attachment which was informed by the petitioner as being completely wrongful. The attachmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
