The Gauhati High Court disposed of two interlocutory applications in a writ petition regarding recovery proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner's need for interim funds was addressed by previous stay orders and the withdrawal of available amounts, rendering further orders unnecessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010015532016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 57/2016
In WP(C) No. 84/2016
1:STATE BANK OF INDIA
VERSUS
1:SMTI GITA RANI BHOWMIK
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N NATH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A CHAMUAH
I.A.(Civil) No. 108/2016 In WP(C) No. 84/2016
1:SMTI GITA RANI BHOWMIK
VERSUS
1:STATE BANK OF INDIA and 2 ORS
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : MRV K BAROOAH
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
ORDER
Date : 07-01-2019
This order will dispose of both the interlocutory applications.
Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for State Bank of India i.e. respondents. While writ petitioner has filed the
Page No.# 2/3
interlocutory application i.e. IA(C) No. 108/2016 to allow her to withdraw a minimum amount of Rs.2 lakhs from her savings bank account which was put on hold by the State Bank of India (SBI) in connection with recovery proceedings, State Bank of India (SBI) has filed the other interlocutory application i.e. IA(C) 57/2016 for vacation of the interim order dated 18.01.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 84/2016.
Order dated 18.01.2016 is a self contained one, which is extracted hereunder:-
“ The petitioner stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by one Parimal Mallik (pr oprietor of M/s. Rupam Bastralaya) from the Kaliabor Branch of the State Bank of India (SBI). Until the loanee suddenly died on 24.1.2014, the repayment of the loan was regular. But since there was loan default after the death of the loan t aker, the Bank took recourse to coercive measures by deducting directly from the petitioner’s Salary Account No.1165682496 (CIF No.81359686361) and by now, Rs.2 ,13,834/- is already siphoned out from the petitioner’s Salary Account.
Mr. A. Chamuah, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a Stage-2 cancer patient and is scheduled to superannuate on 31.1.2016 and the money kept in her S/B. Account is needed urgently to meet the petitioner’s medical expenses.
Moreover although the loanee had mortgaged his immovable property, the Bank is s electively targeting the guarantor, as she is a soft target having her personal account in the Kaliabor Branch of the SBI itself. As the coercive measures again st the guarantor are not by any legal process, the deduction from the petitioner’s Bank Account is challenged through this case.
In view of above, let notice returnable in 2 weeks be issued. Steps be taken by the petitioner to ensure service on all the three respondents by Regd. Post. Add itionally the petitioner may also serve ’dasti’ notice on the respondent No.3, b y routing the notice through the Court’s Registry.
In the interim, considering the projection made from the petitioner’s si de, further deduction is stayed from the petitioner’s Bank Account No.1165682496 (CIF No.81359686361) for repayment of loan taken by the deceased Parimal Mallik.”
In the course of hearing Mr. K. K. Dey, learned counsel for the SBI in his usual fairness submits that writ petitioner has withdrawn whatever amount was available in her savings bank account, to which SBI authorities have also not objected considering the fact that she is a cancer patient.
In the light of the above developments, Court is of the view that the purpose for which the two interlocutory applications were filed no longer survives.
At this stage, Mr. Dey submits that no wrong was committed by SBI authorities in acting against the writ petitioner inasmuch as she was a guarantor to the loan taken by the deceased
Page No.# 3/3
Parimal Malik; in a recovery proceeding guarantor stands in the same footing as the principal debtor.
Be that as it may, this aspect of the matter may be gone into at the time of admission hearing of the writ petition.
However, in view of the above developments, no further order would be required in the two interlocutory applications.
Both the Interlocutory applications are disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
State Bank of India
Smti Gita Rani Bhowmik
Ujjal Bhuyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
