Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 356 (CAL)

Hena Kausar v. Bank Of India

2009-05-06

Sanjib Banerjee

body2009
JUDGMENT: 1. THE writ petitioner has challenged the bank's conduct in threatening to publish the petitioner's photographs in newspapers as a wilful defaulter. THE petitioner says that the petitioner had requested for settlement of the bank's claim and had also put in some money upfront in support of such prayer, but the bank did not pay any heed and threatened to classify the petitioner as a wilful defaulter. 2. BY an order dated March 19,2009 the bank was restrained from publishing the petitioner's photographs in newspapers or elsewhere as a wilful defaulter. The petitioner seeks leave to use a supplementary affidavit as the petitioner says that a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has since been received by the petitioner. The leave sought has been declined since such notice would not fall within the scope of the writ petition. In any event, if the notice under section 13 (2) was taken on record, it would not have added to the merits of the petition. 3. UPON a person receiving a notice under section 13 (2) of the said Act, it is open for such person to raise any objection and the secured creditor is obliged to consider such objection under section 13 (3A) of the said Act. It is only upon subsequent steps being taken by the secured creditor under section 13 (4) of the said Act, that a person aggrieved may approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal for redressal. 4. SINCE the petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is the conduct of the bank to classify the petitioner as a wilful defaulter despite the petitioner offering to repay the amount due to the bank, W.P. 1234 (W) of 2009 is allowed by restraining the respondent-bank from publishing the petitioner's name or photograph as a wilful defaulter, unless the petitioner fails to meet the bank's demand or raise a valid objection to the notice under section 13 (2) of the said Act. It is made clear that the bank will be at liberty to take steps under the said Act of 2002 if the bank is otherwise entitled. 5. THE petitioner has offered to make payment of a certain sum by way of settlement in Court today, which the bank has declined. 6. THERE will be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the bank will be at liberty to take steps under the said Act of 2002 if the bank is otherwise entitled. 5. THE petitioner has offered to make payment of a certain sum by way of settlement in Court today, which the bank has declined. 6. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Writ petition allowed.