M/S Harshit Enterprises & Ors vs State Bank Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 6569 Del

$~3
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                       Judgment delivered on 8th December, 2014

+           W.P.(C) 8193/2013
       M/S HARSHIT ENTERPRISES & ORS              ..... Petitioners
                       Represented by: Ms.Karuna Chhatwal, Adv.

                           versus

       STATE BANK OF INDIA                                ..... Respondent

Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Kapur, Ms.Aparna Iyer and Mr. Shrey Chathly, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J (ORAL)

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing the letter No.SME/GKB/518 dated 03.12.2013 and further restraining from publication of petitioner's photographs in the newspaper.

2. The similar issue came before the High Court of Bombay in W.P.(L) No.2808/2013 and same was decided by order dated 28.11.2013 by Division Bench of High Court of Bombay as under:

"The Apex Court has therefore clearly held that whatever has to be done fairly and is also regarded as incidental to or consequential upon those things which the legislature has authorised to do ought not to be held by judicial construction to be ultravires. In the present case Rule 8 specifically authorised the bank to publish the names and addresses of the wilful defaulters. There is no legal bar either in the said rule or

under any provision of the Act which expressly prohibits the bank from publication of photographs and therefore the action of the bank in publishing the photographs cannot be held to be ultravires. Ratio of the judgment in our view squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the result, it is not possible to accept submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank, the petition therefore is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that the statement made by the bank not to publish the photographs may be extended for a period of four weeks from today. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the banks submits that the said statement is extended for a period of one week. In our view it would be appropriate if this statement made by the bank is extended for a period of three weeks."

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner (therein) challenged the order passed by Bombay High Court in SLP No. 37726/13, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2014. Thus the issue raised in the instant petition has attained finality.

4. In view of the above, the present petition has no merit; accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.

C.M.No.17288/2013 With the dismissal of the present petition, instant application has become infructuous and dismissed as such.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) DECEMBER 08, 2014/mr