Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3033 (ALL)

PREMA DEVI v. UNION OF INDIA

2007-12-18

BHARATI SAPRU, V.M.SAHAI

body2007
JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri Sriprakash Dwivedi learned Counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Addl. Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Manish Trivedi, appears on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no rejoinder affidavit is required to be filed, therefore, we have taken up this matter for final disposal. 3. In the year 2004, the petitioner was disbursed a loan of Rs. 9,18,000/- from the ICICI Bank Ltd., Civil Lines, Allahabad-respondent No. 3 for purchase of a truck under loan agreement. The petitioner has purchased truck No. MP 17C/5416 for carrying goods and got the vehicle registered with Transport Authority, Rewa (M.P.). 4. According to the repayment schedule, the aforesaid loan was to be paid in 34 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 30,625/-. The first instalment was payable on 7.1.2007. The petitioner deposited all 34 instalments with the ICICI Bank, Allahabad within time by 8.1.2007 and thereafter the petitioner contacted the respondents bank for release of papers of vehicle mortgaged against the said loan. 5. The respondents bank did not release papers of mortgaged vehicle of the petitioner and issued a letter dated 16.3.2007 calling upon the petitioner to remit two more instalments aggregating to Rs. 61,790/-. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that all the receipts of deposit were produced by the petitioner before the respondents bank to show that there was no default in payment of instalments and the entire dues have been paid, the respondents bank has not reconceived the accounts of the petitioner. 6. Subsequently on 7.7.2007, 13.8.2007 and 12.10.2007 the respondents bank issued letters to the petitioner-calling upon her to pay one instalment. Thereafter in order to ensure recovery of instalment, the respondents bank started sending recovery/collection agent and other gundas and musclemen, who were harassing the petitioner due to which the petitioner was not able to ply her vehicle smoothly and suffered in her business activities adversely, which was the only source of her livelihood. 7. Thereafter in order to ensure recovery of instalment, the respondents bank started sending recovery/collection agent and other gundas and musclemen, who were harassing the petitioner due to which the petitioner was not able to ply her vehicle smoothly and suffered in her business activities adversely, which was the only source of her livelihood. 7. Inspite of repeated directions and clarifications issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India that the ICICI Bank should not use musclemen for recovery of loan amount, they should make recovery in accordance with law as in this country rule of law prevails but the respondents bank take the law in his own hand and harass the borrowers and there can be no better case than the instant case of the petitioner. 8. Sri Manish Trivedi learned Counsel for the respondents bank has filed a short counter-affidavit wherein para 2 of the affidavit, it is admitted by the Collection Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Allahabad that the petitioner had deposited instalments with the bank and no objection certificate would be issued to him within ten days. For about one year, the petitioner has been running to the respondents and facing threats of gundas sent by the respondents and her business has suffered. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that ICICI Bank is not acting in accordance with law of the land and is violating the law and resorting to deployment of extra-judicial authority for collection of loan amount. However, the interest of justice would be served if some special cost is imposed on the respondents bank for harassing the petitioner and giving her undue mental torture for about one year due to which the petitioners business suffered though the petitioner had paid all the instalments to the respondents bank in time. 10. In this view of the matter, we award Rs. 25,000/- as costs to be paid by the respondents bank (respondent No. 3) to the petitioner within a period of one month from today. 11. The writ petition is disposed of finally. 12. Certified copy of this order will be issued to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. ————