Harinder Singh v. Indusind Bank Ltd And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15695 of 2018 Decided on 27.09.2018 Harinder Singh Petitioner
Versus
IndusInd Bank Ltd., Mumbai and others Respondents * * * CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :
Ms. Satinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2.
* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to IndusInd Bank Ltd. not to send recovery agents and their muscle-men who are stopping the hypothecated vehicle i.e. Tip-Trailer of the petitioner for illegal seizure of the vehicle. 2.
The petitioner is the borrower of the loan. IndusInd Bank Ltd., Mumbai; Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank, Moga and the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3 respectively, in the writ petition.
3.
The petitioner got financed one Tip-Trailer, Ashok Leyland 4019, IL 3300 MM, bearing registration No. PB29-X-1241 from respondent No.2 amounting to 19,17,997/-. The vehicle was
hypothecated. The loan amount was to be repaid in 60 equal monthly installments (EMI's) of 45,700 each starting from June, 2016. There was a default in payment of installments from December, 2017. It has been pleaded that the bank initiated arbitration proceedings and there was an ex-parte award of November, 2017. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is that the respondent-bank is sending the recovery agents and their muscle-men for illegal seizure of the vehicle which is sole source of livelihood of the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued. In pursuance thereto, learned counsel for the respondent-bank appeared and contended that the respondent-bank would be making recovery of the dues only in accordance with law. 4.
In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-bank, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent-bank would proceed to recover their due amount strictly in accordance with law.
5.
Before parting with the matter, it would be appropriate to mention the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank vs. Shanti Devi Sharma and others 2008(7)SCC 532. The Supreme Court referred to the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India and held that for recovery of the loan, the lenders should not resort to undue harassment by use of muscle power for recovery. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below:
!
!
! "
#
"
$ %
$
# &' & ! "
( ) $* &)
+
, - ..
/"
# #!
! 0
#
" $
$
% "% "
## ) %
"
2 ) 3"
..
/) ! 3!%
$% (
"
)
" ( "4 , &'5 ,
, &,& ,!
"
(
&,&, " 4 "
# 0 $ "
"
$'
6
" % % ( $%0 7 % $
" $" " " # $ " $ 6 "
"
% $ '%
/7 "
#% $ " 1
%
% $ .8 "
#% $ %
:
"
$
"
;
% 47 ; # "
"
"% $ " $ 9 $
#
% $ 2 % $( # # "
( "
$ :<
(#
"
% $ ""
"
$ #
% $# '
(6#
$# ,% $ " "
) 0
3! #
! ,
<&=<-(8&, 16 : 9
96
> / ? .
/ ( )
+
, - $! ,
<&=<8&+ 1 6 1.26
4> 9 8#$ /
4 ( ( ! ? ,
<&=<<&,96 1 6
9> 2 @
9 ,
, ="
#
" ( " 4 5,&'5,
, 5 &,& ,!"
(
&' #
( 6
$#
"
A" "" B / & 3"
$ $
(
( $' "
(( ( ( %#"
"
#
%
" (
"
) (( # ( & 0 # %
$ "
(
( $' (( ( (
"
# " $
%
"
' $'
(
% & '
# $ " $'
"%
) # "
) $& 0 /&' "
" " $
( C
( ((
$#(
&,& , % (( "
1," #$ #&' (
$#( "
$ # "
% $ $'5 ( % $# %
#&'
" ( $ $' (( ( "
*
"
" $ $# ( #&' 3 (
"
$ $
"
$
% (,
"
,
"
" "
( $'
<
6= 6( %
"
"
"
"
. 3" $'%
" ( $# (
"
1 D
""
"
$'
% #
(# $ % 6.
In view of decision of the Apex Court, we are giving a serious reminder to those, who indulge in such activities, to refrain from doing such acts in future.
7.
The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE September 27, 2018 "'*$%* Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No