Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramakant Dwivedi vs State Bank Of India on 1 March, 2021
Author: Sheel Nagu
1 WP-4919-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-4919-2021
(RAMAKANT DWIVEDI Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-03-2021
Shri Swapnil Sohgaura, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard.
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.
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.
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
Signature Not Verified
SAN
employer), or payable out of any service family pension fund
Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE
Date: 2021.03.02 17:23:18 IST
2 WP-4919-2021
notified in the Official Gazette by (the Central Government
or the State Government) in this behalf, and political
pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta
Vs. 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. 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
b e 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 vi ew w a s taken, the consistent view
ta ke n thereafter support the contention that
merely because o f t h e fa c t tha t gratuity and
pensionary benefits had been received by the
appellant i n c a s h, i t c o ul d n o l o nge r be
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE
Date: 2021.03.02 17:23:18 IST
3 WP-4919-2021
identified as such retiral benefits paid to the
appellant.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.
(SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by PANKAJ NAGLE
Date: 2021.03.02 17:23:18 IST
