Judgment :- Chitra Venkataraman, J. 1. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the second respondent Bank pertaining to the letter dated 22.03.2012 freezing and appropriating the Fixed Deposit standing in the joint names of the petitioners amounting to a sum of Rs.52,06,438/-with accrued interest under the SARFAESI Act towards the loan outstanding in respect of M/s.San Shoes Loan and thereby direct the 2nd respondent to release the Fixed Deposit made in receipt No.CDRA/09: 988185 with accrued interest thereon. 2. The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. It is seen from the narration of facts that the second petitioner Namachivayam entered into partnership with one P.S.Srinivas on 5th March 2007, for running the business in the name of "San Shoes". The firm's business was manufacturing, processing finishing, distribution, trading, exporting and importing of leather products. In respect of the business, the firm availed credit facilities from the respondent bank and loan documents were executed. Equitable mortgage was created by one of the partners P.S.Srinivas over his assets. 3. It is stated that the Bank had already initiated action as against the properties of the said Srinivas and possession notice was issued on 14.02.2012. The second petitioner Namachivayam states that he retired from the partnership firm as early as 01.04.2010. The said fact was intimated to the respondent Bank. 4. It is a matter of record that the petitioners made a joint fixed deposit in the second respondent Bank on the sale proceeds received on the sale of their property amounting to Rs.52,06,438/- for a period of 12 months from 07.04.2011. 5. It is seen from the copy of the deposit receipt produced by the Bank, second respondent herein, that the deposit in the joint names of the petitioners, on maturity, was payable to either or survivor. Considering the default committed by the erstwhile firm and that the second petitioner stood as a guarantor for this, the fixed deposit maintained by the petitioners was sought to be frozen to satisfy the debts due to the Bank. 6. It is stated that the accounts of the firm were classified as NPA, and a demand notice dated 13.10.2011 was issued and served on the petitioner on 14.02.2012. Thereafter, the second respondent had gone ahead with the freezing of the accounts. Hence, this writ petition. 7. 6. It is stated that the accounts of the firm were classified as NPA, and a demand notice dated 13.10.2011 was issued and served on the petitioner on 14.02.2012. Thereafter, the second respondent had gone ahead with the freezing of the accounts. Hence, this writ petition. 7. On notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit before this Court, wherein, it is pointed out that on 01.08.2007, the firm had a term loan of Rs.27,75,000/- and as on 16.12.2009, there was open cash credit of Rs.30,00,000/-, FDBP of Rs.20,00,000/-and Packing credit limit of Rs.30,00,000/-, thus totalling to a sum of Rs.1,07,75,000/-. Since the firm, which had availed of the loan facility, had not kept up its repayment schedule, the Bank took action under the SARFAESI Act to enforce the guarantee on the second petitioner. Even after the declaration of the accounts as NPA, the said Namachivayam or Srinivas did not take steps to regularise or repay the loan. In the circumstances, rightly, proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act were taken up by the Bank, calling upon the partners to discharge the liability on an aggregate sum of Rs.84,28,183.77 within sixty days from the date of the notice along with further interest. Since neither partners had acted on the notice, the first respondent bank decided to take possession of the property of the partner Srinivas, mortgaged with the second respondent Bank. 8. Even thereafter wards, the said Srinivas did not take any steps to repay the loan. Subsequent thereto, the first respondent gave instructions to the second respondent of the lien over the fixed deposit made by the petitioners herein. On the basis of the instructions, the account was frozen. 9. It is stated that on the issuance of the sale notice, P.S.Srinivas preferred a Securitisation Appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai and got a conditional stay order, whereby, he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs to the respondent Bank in two instalments. Since the said Srinivas remitted the second instalment after the due date, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application. In the process, the respondent Bank initiated recovery action against the second petitioner as well as other parties. 10. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the contention that there was no notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was bereft of truth. In the process, the respondent Bank initiated recovery action against the second petitioner as well as other parties. 10. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the contention that there was no notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was bereft of truth. The second respondent is jointly and severally liable to pay along with the other partners, to the Bank. As the fixed deposit is also in the name of the second petitioner, having regard to the default committed by the firm in which the said petitioner was a partner, rightly, action was taken by the Bank. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no quarrel over the fact that the second petitioner stood as a guarantor to the borrowing of the firm in which he was a Partner. However, the limited question raised by the petitioners before this Court is as to whether, in respect of the joint deposit held by the petitioners herein, there could be any proceedings under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, to freeze the petitioners' joint deposit. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 498 (Anumaji Vs. Punjab National Bank) to submit that the joint deposit held with the Bank cannot be bilaterally modified by one of the joint account holders by pledging the account to any third party including the bank itself, in its capacity as a creditor. He pointed out that once the Bank admitted the fact that the deposit is a joint deposit, payable to either or survivor, the Bank has no right to freeze the deposit or adjust the amount towards any arrear payable by an entity in which one of the depositors happened to be a Partner. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, however, supported the order by contending that when the second petitioner stood as a guarantor to pay the debt on behalf of the firm, rightly action was taken. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material placed on record. 14. We do not find that the objection made by the Bank could be sustained, in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 498 (Anumaji Vs. Punjab National Bank). 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material placed on record. 14. We do not find that the objection made by the Bank could be sustained, in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 498 (Anumaji Vs. Punjab National Bank). A perusal of the said judgment of the Apex Court shows that once a fixed deposit is made in the joint names of two persons, on the expiration of the period, the amount is repayable to either or survivor of the joint account holders. Thus the Bank is a debtor of the account holders in respect of the amount deposited. The Apex Court pointed out "An "either or survivor" clause in such an account means that the amount payable by the bank on maturity of the fixed deposit may be paid to either of the account-holders by the bank in order to obtain a valid discharge. In other words, under a tripartite agreement between the joint account-holders inter se and the bank, the bank may, on maturity, make payment only to either of them. This tripartite agreement cannot be bilaterally modified by one of the joint account-holders for example by pledging the account with any third party including the bank itself in its capacity of creditor, so that the amount becomes payable to such third party, without the consent of the joint account holder. " 15. The Apex Court pointed out to the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1954 Cal 303 (Nath Bank Ltd. Vs. Sisir Kumar Sarkar), wherein it was held that during the joint lives of two account holders, the Bank could not set off the debt due from one of the joint account holders against such a joint debt. Thus, confirming the judgment of the Calcutta High Court as well as applying the decision reported in (1938) All ER 491 (CA) (Hirschorn Vs. Evans (Barclays Bank Ltd., Garnishees), the Apex Court pointed out that the joint account was between the Bank and the husband and wife. The fixed deposit was not a debt due by the Bank to one of the account holders alone, so as to set it off as against any amount due to the Bank by any one of such account holders. The fixed deposit was not a debt due by the Bank to one of the account holders alone, so as to set it off as against any amount due to the Bank by any one of such account holders. The right of the husband to receive the money deposited was there only when it got matured and only if the said person survived. Since the husband died and the fixed deposit matured, the only person who was entitled to receive the amount would be the other deposit holder. Thus, the Apex Court pointed out that the right of the other deposit holder, who was not in any way liable to pay, could not be taken away without her sanction. It is no doubt true that the second petitioner, namely, Namachivayam, stood as a surety for the loan taken by the firm in which he was a partner. After the account was declared as NPA, the joint deposit was made on 07.04.2011. 16. Even though the guarantee of the second deposit holder was a genuine one, so long as the deposit remained as a joint one, payable to either or survivor, we do not find any justifiable ground to uphold the action of the Bank, the respondent herein. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition, thereby quashing the order under Ref: LVB/431/22/11-12/Gen, dated 22.03.2012 and directing the respondent Bank to release the Fixed Deposit made in receipt No.CDRA/09: 988185, amounting to Rs.52,06,438/- with accrued interest thereon forthwith, without any further delay. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.2 of 2012 stands closed.