Delhi High Court
Union Bank Of India vs Rajesh Saxena & Ors on 1 March, 2018
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 1st March, 2018
+ C.R.P. 212/2017 and CM APPL.35141/2017 (stay)
UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
versus
RAJESH SAXENA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for R-1.
Ms. Ruchi, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The first respondent had instituted a civil suit against the second
respondent for recovery of money, it having been decreed by
judgment dated 01.09.2015. To enforce the said decree, the first
respondent (the decree-holder) took out the execution proceedings
(Ex.No.122/2015, new No.9591/2016), which are pending before the
Court of Additional District Judge-03, South-East District against the
second respondent (judgment-debtor). It appears, in the course of the
said execution proceedings it came to light that the judgment debtor
holds an account with Union Bank of India (the petitioner herein).
The executing Court by its order dated 10.03.2017 ordered attachment
of the credit balance in the said account directing the bank to remit the
money to it so that the decree could be satisfied. It further appears
that by communication dated 20.12.2016, in answer to the directions
of the executing Court, the Chief Manager of the petitioner bank
informed that it had marked lien against account
No.413701010036595 of the judgment debtor with the amount of
Rs.9,98,712.59, the balance in the account as on 20.12.2016 being
Rs.10,70,606.97.
2. The petitioner bank later approached the executing Court with
the prayer for recall of the order of attachment of the account of the
judgment debtor on the ground that there was an outstanding amount
of Rs.16,38,14,79,694.03 against the judgment debtor which the bank
was entitled to recover. The prayer for recall of the order of
attachment was declined by the executing court with the observation
that it should pursue the remedies available to it under the law.
3. When the matter was heard on 26.09.2017, it was argued by the
bank that it has right of general lien over the money lying in the
account of the judgment debtor. It was noted that the bank had made
no averments about it having exercised the right of general lien or
having credited the money lying in the account of the judgment-debtor
to its own account in settlement of the amounts claimed to be due to
the bank. Since the counsel for the petitioner bank was clueless as to
the steps taken, suitable directions were given. Eventually, the Deputy
General Manager appeared in the court on 08.11.2017 when the matter
was further heard. Reliance was placed by the bank on ruling in
Syndicate Bank vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1066 to contend
that all that it was required to do was to file objections to the order of
attachment setting out its claim for lien and if the executing court were
to find lien the attached money would not be credited towards the
satisfaction of the debts of the account holder.
4. The learned counsel for the bank submitted, at the hearing
today, that the bank may be given liberty to file fresh objection
petition setting out all the steps taken by it for recovery of the dues
owed by the judgment debtor to it and also with regard to its superior
claim over the money lying in the said bank account. In the given
facts and circumstances, while the petitioner bank deserves to be
granted such liberty, the interest of the decree-holder also deserves to
be duly protected.
5. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner bank shall deposit
with the executing court the decretal amount with up-to-date interest,
to the extent the same can be satisfied by the credit balance presently
lying in the afore-mentioned bank account of the judgment debtor, in
the form of fixed deposit interest bearing receipt, initially for a period
of six months with provision for auto-renewal. The amount thus
deposited with the executing court shall be retained for appropriate
disbursal in light of the decision taken on the objection petition of the
petitioner bank, which may be submitted within four weeks hereof.
The deposit of money in the form of fixed deposit receipt shall also
have to be made within the same period.
6. The executing court shall take a decision on the objection
petition after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. In case
of any default by the petitioner bank in submitting the objection for
which the liberty has been granted, it shall be liable to be forthwith
remit the requisite amount to the executing court for satisfaction of the
decree.
7. The petition and the application filed therewith stand disposed
of with these observations.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MARCH 01, 2018
vk
