Dismissed

Om Parkash Laceria v. Punjab National Bank

Himachal Pradesh HC20 Sept 2017CWP/5132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the bank's appropriation of his leave encashment and other deductions as a guarantor for his son's loan without prior action against the principal debtor. The single-judge bench held that a guarantor's liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor's and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the bank's recovery actions is dismissed; parties bear their own costs.

Om Parkash Laceria Vs Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 5132 of 2012 Decided on: 20.9.2017

¶3

____________________________________________________________________ Om Parkash Laceria .......Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank ….…Respondent ____________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the petitioner: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapoor Gautam, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.

¶4

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. (oral).

¶5

The instant petition has been filed mainly with the

¶6

following prayers:

¶7

1) That the letter dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure P-2) whereby the CC account No. has been transferred to NPA and letter dated 4.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby the respondent Bank has appropriated Rs.3,71,877/being leave encashment of the petitioner towards the liability to the bank as guarantor being wrong and illegal may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶8

1. That the respondent bank may kindly be directed to release the leave encashment of the petitioner amounting to

¶9

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶10

¶11

Rs.3,71,877/- and other amount which the respondent bank has deduced from the petitioner’s account along with 18% interest from due date forthwith interest of justice and fair play.

¶12

The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier with the respondent-Bank in the year 1978 and thereafter, finally came to be promoted to Class-I category in the year 2005. The son of the petitioner took loan from the respondent-Bank and the petitioner stood guarantor for the same.

¶13

Now, the grievance of the petitioner is twofold – (i) that

¶14

without initiating proceedings against the principal debtor, the respondent-Bank cannot proceed against the petitioner simply being the guarantor for the loan amount; and (ii) that the retiral benefits of the petitioner cannot be withheld after his retirement on 28.2.2011.

¶15

Both submissions are without merit.

¶16

As regards first submission, it is more than settled that the liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and no fetter can be put on the rights of the borrower to first recover the amount due from the guarantor. This position is unexceptional in view of the judgment of the three Judges of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s Indexport Registered and others, (1992) 3 SCC 159 .

¶17

As regards second submission, the same is equally without merit as recove ry effected from the petitioner by the

¶18

¶19

respondent-Bank is not on account of any dues to the petitioner in connection with his service, but what the respondent-Bank has in fact recovered is its dues from the petitioner, for having stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by his son in repayment whereof the son had admittedly defaulted.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid observations, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any also stands dismissed.

¶21

September 20, 2017 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) (pankaj) Judge

Om Parkash Laceria v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash Laceria v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhruv Dutt Sharma and Others Vs Anita Devi and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs Swaroop Singh

Oic Vs Sheela Devi

Bhajan Dass Vs Jai Karan Dass

New India Assu. Vs Pammi Devi

Moti Ram Thakur Vs Sanjeev Thakur