Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Kanchan Hotels And Club Ltd. Through ... vs Pnb Housing Finance Ltd. on 26 December, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 26 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 31756 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
M/S KANCHAN HOTELS AND CLUB LTD. THROUGH
MANAGING DIRECTOR GAURAV SINGH KATHPAL S/O
SHRI JASBIR SINGH KATHPAL OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
HOTEL KANCHAN TILAK, 585/2 M.G. ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI NISHEET WISHARD - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD. THROUGH
AUTHORIZED OFFICER 9TH FLOOR, ANTARIKSH
BAHWAN, 22 KASTURBA GANDHI MARG, NEW
DELHI (DELHI)
2. PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD. THROUGH
REGIONAL BRANCH HEAD SHRI RITESH
SAKSENA MAGNA POLIS SECOND FLOOR 589 MG
ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
following reliefs:-
"7.1 Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent bank to
issue the NOC and release the title documents of the mortgaged property in
respect of the Loan Account No.NHL/IND/0818/568768.
7.2 The respondent Bank may please be commanded not to make illegal
demand from them.
7.3 Any other relief the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances may
kindly be granted.
7.4 Cost of the petition may also be awarded."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had taken
Mortgage Loan Facility from the respondent to the tune of Rs.5,01,50,000/-.
Due to certain issues between the tenant and the petitioner, the petitioner
decided to foreclose the loan account and requested the respondents to
consider the same alongwith request letter and demand draft of Rs.9,00,000/-
was sent with a request to foreclose the account bearing
No.NHL/IND/0818/568768.
3. The reply was received from the bank on 28.08.2023, in which it was
mentioned that the final foreclosing settlement amount is Rs.5,21,52,138/- which
is to be paid on or before 10.09.2023.
4. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has complied with the
conditions of settlement letter and deposited the amount demanded by the
respondent/bank. However, the respondent is not issuing NOC and is not
returning the title documents and mortgage property.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking specific performance of
contract. It is well established principle of law that this Court in exercise of
power under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot direct the parties to
perform their part of contract. Faced with such a situation, counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Mohanlal Patidar Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Anr dated
21.02.2022 passed in WP No.22127/2021 and accordingly, it is submitted
that in view of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation, the judicial review can be
made in the parameters of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
7. So far as the aforementioned judgment is concerned, it is in respect of
One Time Settlement Scheme floated by the bank, therefore, the question in the
said case was with regard to implementation of the OTS Scheme. However, it is
not the case that in the present case also a request for foreclosure was made on
account of any OTS Scheme. It was a voluntary act of the petitioner and
therefore, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable.
8. Since the writ petition for specific performance of contract is not
maintainable, therefore, petition is dismissed with liberty to avail statutory
remedy which is available to him.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
V. JUDGE
Sourabh
