Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 4 (GAU)

Tilak Gogoi v. United Bank of India

2019-01-04

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.S.BOPANNA

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 7.6.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7475 of 2015. The appellant herein was before the learned Single Judge assailing the action of the Respondent Bank in freezing the savings bank account of the petitioner. In the proceeding before the learned Single Judge, the respondent Bank had contended that the petitioner was the guarantor in respect of four loan transactions which had been advanced to different persons. In that light, the learned Single Judge having taken into consideration that a sum of Rs.17 lakhs was due to the Bank by the borrowers and since the petitioner was the guarantor in respect of such loan transactions which were declared as non- performing assets, was of the opinion that the action of the respondents cannot be faulted and the writ petition was accordingly dismissed. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge is before this Court in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent Bank was not justified in freezing the account unlawfully, more particularly in the circumstance when the salary of the appellant was being deposited in the said account, jeopardizing the livelihood of the appellant. In that light, it is contended that the stand as taken by the Respondent Bank would not be justified and even otherwise, the stand presently taken in the appeal being that the appellant had not complied with the KYC norms, such contradictory stand cannot be accepted in a proceeding of the present nature. 4. Learned counsel for respondents would, however, referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed before this Court in this appeal and with reference to the annexures filed along with the affidavit, would point out that in respect of the loan transactions as has been taken up by the learned Single Judge, an execution proceeding is being taken up and in the said proceedings, the executing court permitted realization of the due amount of the borrowers from the account of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant cannot raise any grievance at this point of time. It is also contended, in addition to the same, in view of the RBI regulation, the KYC norms are also to be complied and this fact has been indicated in the affidavit. It is further stated in the affidavit that due to non-compliance of the KYC norms, the respondent Bank was not in a position to deduct the amount as permitted by the executing court and in such circumstance, the grievance as put forth by the appellant cannot be countenanced and the appeal is liable to be rejected. 5. In the light of the rival contentions and on a perusal of the appeal papers, more particularly the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, the position would be clear that the appellant in any event had offered himself as a guarantor in respect of the loan that had been advanced by the respondent Bank to borrowers whose names are indicated in AnnexureA-3 to the affidavit. From Annexure-A3 it is clear that the said borrowers had defaulted in respect of the loan and that the appellant had became liable as guarantor. The respondent Bank having initiated action for recovery and having secured the decree for recovery of the amount, had initiated the execution proceedings in Money Execution No.1/16. In the said proceeding, the Executing Court, whose order is at Annexure-A1 to the affidavit, had permitted the respondent Bank to deduct 50 per cent of the decreetal amount from the account of the appellant herein who was the guarantor. It is further indicated therein that on such deduction, the respondent Bank shall defreeze the Bank account of the appellant herein. If that be the position, the Respondent Bank, in view of the legal proceeding, was entitled to deduct 50 per cent of the amount outstanding and payable by the borrowers whose details are indicated in Annexure-A3 to the affidavit. To that extent, it is stated that the 50 per cent of the amount which was payable by the appellant amounted to Rs.6,70,000/-. In view of the above position, as per orders of the executing court, the respondent Bank was entitled to deduct the same and release the account of the appellant. To that extent, it is stated that the 50 per cent of the amount which was payable by the appellant amounted to Rs.6,70,000/-. In view of the above position, as per orders of the executing court, the respondent Bank was entitled to deduct the same and release the account of the appellant. Though that be the position, since the respondent Bank have also indicated in the affidavit filed in this appeal that the appellant had not complied with the KYC norms, certainly the appellant is required to comply with the same as otherwise the Regulation of the RBI would not stand satisfied. It is further clarified that the appellant shall contact the respondent Bank and furnish the details so as to comply with the KYC norms. On compliance of the same, if the 50 per cent amount as permitted by the Executing Court is not being deducted, the respondent Bank shall deduct the same from the account of the appellant and, thereafter, the appellant be permitted to operate the account without any other impediment. To enable the said process to be complied, the appellant shall comply with the KYC norms within the time frame fixed by the Respondent Bank and on compliance of the same, the process of appropriation of 50 per cent of the defaulted amount be made and the account of the appellant be operationalized and the appellant be permitted, thereafter, to operate the account in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.