Orissa High Court
Sujit Kumar Ghosh vs State Bank Of India & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24522 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950)
Sujit Kumar Ghosh .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State Bank of India & Anr. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : M/s. Banshidhar Baug, Adv.
Mr.M.R. Baug, Adv.
Mr.G.R. Sahoo, Adv.
Mr.H. Sahu, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Biswal, Adv.
For Opposite Party(s) : Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING: -07.10.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -08.11.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has sought for a direction from
this Court to the Opposite Parties/Bank authorities for returning his
original mortgaged title deeds submitted at the time of availing the loan
in question
2. In addition to the above prayer, the Petitioner has also sought for a
direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties for paying a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per day to him from the date of issuance of the "No Due
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
Certificate" because of the delay in returning the above noted
documents.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. In order to meet his financial requirement in the year 1986,the Petitioner
had obtained a working capital loan of Rs.72,000/- from the Opposite
Parties/Bank. At the time of availing the loan the Petitioner as per the
requirement had mortgaged original title deeds of his property.
4. After availing the loan since the failed to pay the loan E.M.Is in time, the
loan account in question became NPA. Hence, the Opposite Party
No.2/Bank initiated a proceeding vide TMS No.297 of 1988 before the
Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), First Court, Cuttack for
recovery of a sum of Rs.2,50,592.25 paise as on 25.10.1987.
5. Upon institution of the aforesaid proceeding vide TMS No.297 of 1988,
the Opposite Parties/Bank as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of
India floated an One Time Settlement Scheme for settlement of the loan
accounts already declared as NPA.
6. Soon after getting the information regarding the said scheme, the
Petitioner submitted an application for settlement of the loan
outstanding dues as per the said scheme. Accordingly, the loan
outstanding dues of the Petitioner was settled at a sum of Rs.1,06,337/-.
A communication in that regard was also made to the Petitioner by the
Assistant General Manager of the Opposite Party No.1/Bank vide letter
dated 26.07.2010. The Petitioner paid the above noted OTS amount in
due time. Upon such payment the Assistant General Manager of the
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
Opposite Party No.1/Bank vide letter dated 24.12.2010 issued "No Due
Certificate" in favour of the Petitioner.
7. Upon clearance of the loan outstanding dues and issuance of a "No Due
Certificate" in favour of the Petitioner/ the Petitioner approached the
concerned authority of the Opposite Parties/Bank for getting the
documents i.e. original mortgaged title deeds back which was
submitted at the time of availing the loan. Despite several approaches of
the Petitioner, the authority concerned of the Opposite Parties/Bank are
not returning the above noted documents to the Petitioner. Hence, this
Writ Petition.
II. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER:
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being a
septuagenarian person has been approaching the concerned authorities
of the Opposite Parties/Bank for getting the above noted documents
back since 2010. He further submits that due to non-return of the above
noted valuable documents the Petitioner is suffering immensely.
9. He, accordingly, prays for allowing the prayer made by the Petitioner in
this Writ Petition.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the OppositeParties/Bank intently made
the following submissions:
11. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties/Bank submits that since the
loan account of the Petitioner was classified as NPA, the Opposite
Parties/Bank initiated a proceeding vide TMS No.297 of 1988 before the
Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), First Court, Cuttack.Since
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
the matter was subjudice before the learned court below, the Opposite
Parties/Bank were not in a position to return the above noted
documents to the Petitioner.
12. He further contends that the above noted TMS case has already been
disposed of since 02.04.2013.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
13. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties,
looking to the factual scenario of the case and as the proceeding vide
TMS Case No.297 of 1988 has already been closed since 2013, this Court
is of the view that the Opposite Parties/Bank authorities are playing
hide and seek with the Petitioner. This Court has often seen that the
approach of the Banks especially pertaining to this issue is very casual.
14. Admittedly/ the loan account was closed by repayment and the Bank's
interest consequent to the mortgage of the property is protected fully;
and therefore, the title deed deposited by the petitioner with the Bank
creating a mortgage is no more required.
15. The Opposite Parties/Bank's claim that they cannot return the title deed
due to the loan account being classified as NPA and the ongoing
proceedings under TMS No. 297 of 1988 before the Court of the learned
Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), First Court, Cuttack, is unfounded, as the loan
account has long been settled and closed. Once the loan was resolved,
there was no legal reason for the Bank to withhold the return of the title
deed, regardless of the pending litigation. Therefore, the refusal to
return the document is unjustifiable.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 19-Nov-2024 16:06:46
16. The Petitioner made numerous representations to the Bank officials,
relentlessly seeking the return of his documents, but his efforts were
met with disdainful neglect. Despite his persistence, including frequent
personal visits and countless letters, the original documents were never
returned. The petitioner, after his retirement, was forced to endure daily
struggles to recover his original documents, facing undue hardship and
inconvenience. For the petitioner to now question the reasonableness of
the award under these egregious circumstances is a preposterous.
17. In light of the petitioner's advanced age and the significant difficulties
he is facing in retrieving the documents despite no fault of his own, this
Court directs the Opposite Parties/Bank to pay the petitioner a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation within 30 days
from the date of presentation of a copy of this judgment. Additionally,
the Opposite Parties/Bank are ordered to take prompt and effective
measures to return the original or duplicate documents to the petitioner
within one month.
18. In the above facts and circumstances, the satisfaction of the entire
liability is recorded and the Opposite Parties/ Bank are directed to
return title deeds of the petitioner forthwith, at any rate within one
month.
19. The Writ Petition is allowed and hereby disposed of.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 8th Nov., 2024/
