Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 280 (MP)

Ramakant Dwivedi v. State Bank of India

2021-03-01

SHEEL NAGU

body2021
ORDER 1. The petitioner by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not challenge any specific order but seeks following reliefs :- (i) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to remove the hold from the account number 34725643550 at Branch Mangawan of the State Bank of India, District Rewa. (ii) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to consider and decide the representation/reply of the petitioner dated 27.10.2020 after affording the opportunity to the petitioner and settled the dispute in accordance with law, (iii) Hon'ble Court may kindly be further pleased to direct the respondents to award the cost of litigation amount Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. (iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may also be granted. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he obtained home loan from the State Bank of India but on account of certain defaults committed in repayment the Bank has issued demand notice and has frozen another account of the petitioner bearing number 34725643550 which according to the petitioner is a pension account at Branch Mangawan of the State Bank of India, District Rewa. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon section 60(1)(G) of the CPC, which is reproduced below submits that pension cannot be attached : Section 60(1)(g) of the CPC is reproduced as under :- "Stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the Government (or of a local authority or of any other employer), or payable out of any service family pension fund notified in the Official Gazette by (the Central Government or the State Government) in this behalf, and political pension. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta v. Punjab National Bank and another [ (2009) 1 SCC 376 ] which reads as under :- 33. However, we are also of the view that having regard to proviso (g) to section 60 (1) of the Code, the High Court committed a jurisdictional error in directing that a portion of the decretal amount be satisfied from the fixed deposit receipts of the appellant held by the Bank. The High Court also erred in placing the onus on the appellant to produce the Matador in question for being auctioned for recovery of the decretal dues. The High Court also erred in placing the onus on the appellant to produce the Matador in question for being auctioned for recovery of the decretal dues. In other words, the High Court erred in altering the decree of the trial Court in its revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the pension and gratuity of the appellant, which had been converted into Fixed Deposits, could not be attached under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund case (supra), has been considerably watered down by later decisions which have been indicated in paragraphs 15 and 16 hereinbefore and it has been held that gratuity payable would not be liable to attachment for satisfaction of a Court decree in view of proviso (g) to section 60(1) of the Code. 35. We also agree with Ms. Shobha that even after the retiral benefits, such as pension and gratuity, had been received by the appellant, they did not lose their character and continued to be covered by proviso (g) to section 60(1) of the Code. Except for the decision in the Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance case (supra), where a contrary view w a s taken, the consistent view ta ke n thereafter support the contention that merely because of the fact tha t gratuity and pensionary benefits had been received by the appellant i n cash, it could no longe r be identified as such retiral benefits paid to the appellant. 5. There cannot be any dispute in regard to the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that pension is immune from attachment in terms of the statutory bar contained in section 60 (1)(g) of the CPC as reproduced above. However, the Bank is always free to attach any other asset or even recover from the said pension amount of the petitioner, any money available in excess of the amount of pension for the purpose of recovery of overdue loan account. 6. This Court would not like to enter into any other point on merits except the aforesaid and leaves it to the Bank and petitioner to deal with the issue in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines and the loan agreement between the rival parties. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of. Swapnil Sohgaura for petitioner.