The High Court directed a bank employee to pay a disputed Rs. 5.19 lakhs to State Bank of India, which was mistakenly waived. Upon payment, the court ordered the release of mortgaged original documents that the bank retained.
Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 5.19 Lakhs within 12 weeks; Respondents directed to release mortgaged documents upon payment.
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.
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.13641 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.16945 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.10798 of 2023
K.Srinivasan
... Petitioner
Vs. 1.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RASMECC-CUM-SARC, No.208, Anna Salai, (Vignesh Complex), Puducherry-605 001
2.State Bank of India, Represented by its Branch Manager, Market Committee Complex, Thattanchavady, Puducherry-605 009
... Respondents
PRAYER: The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the original agreement to sale dated 12.12.2000 and the original sale deed dated 25.02.2002,
1/6
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
which are with the respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavalu Naidu
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the original agreement to sale dated 12.12.2000 and
the original sale deed dated 25.02.2002, retained with the respondents.
● The petitioner is an employee of a certain corporate house and he along with few of his colleagues applied for housing loan with the respondent. Due to certain reasons, the loan was not serviced by all the borrowers and it was declined as non performing assets. The proceedings were initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai in D.R.C.No.43 of 2013, for recovery of the amount against all the 26 defaulters, which included the petitioner herein.
2/6
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
3/6
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
petitioner vide its communication dated 31.05.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the bank for return of its original title deeds, but that however, was not forthcoming. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court with this petition.
3.The response of the bank is candid. It admitted that a OTS entered on 25.02.2015, and the waiver in paying part liability was given to the petitioner and few other similarly placed borrowers. It also admitted that the petitioner had paid Rs.9.01 Lakhs. The dispute is over the differential payment of Rs 5.19 Lakhs, which according to the respondent is still required to be paid. Whereas according to the petitioner, he has paid Rs.573 as was required subsequently and in terms of which, even a NOC was issued to him by the bank.
4.The respondent’s explanation to the above stand of the petitioner is that the petitioner was wrongly given certain concession under the bona fide belief of the bank that he is eligible for that concession under a scheme for one time settlement of Advances Under Collection Account (AUCA) (SBI AUCA OTS 2016-2017). In terms of this scheme, the petitioner is not eligible for any benefit
4/6
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
under the scheme, but it was wrongly given. This mistake of the bank was later discovered. Hence, the bank continues to hold its lien on the documents that were mortgaged by the petitioner.
5.On the one side, this court sees a petitioner who says that he was not even informed about the amount payable in terms of the OTS as was offered in February, 2015. On the other hand here is a bank which says that it had applied a wrong scheme to give certain concession for which the petitioner is not eligible. If it is a mistake, then the public money cannot be lost to the bank and necessarily the petitioner may have to pay the same. However, since there appears some terrible miscommunication or no communication on certain aspects vital to both sides. But, the petitioner is still required to pay Rs.5.19 Lakhs to the bank. The next aspect relates to is whether the petitioner needs to pay any interest on the said amount. Since the mistake has been on the part of the bank for not communicating promptly, especially when it has issued a NOC, it would be inequitable to fasten interest liability on the said sum Rs.5.19 Lakhs on the petitioner.
5/6
W.P.No.13641 of 2020
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Anu 6.In view of the above, this court directs the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5.19 Lakhs to the bank within a period of twelve weeks from today, whereupon the respondents are directed to release the documents to the petitioner.
7.This writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.07.2023
Anu Index : Yes / No Neutral citation : yes/no To 1.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RASMECC-CUM-SARC, No.208, Anna Salai, (Vignesh Complex), Puducherry-605 001 2.The Branch Manager, Market Committee Complex, Thattanchavady, Puducherry-605 009 W.P.No.13641 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.16945 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.10798 of 2023
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank is entitled to retain mortgage documents pending the recovery of a disputed differential amount despite having issued a No Objection Certificate.
Whether interest should be charged on the disputed amount considering the bank's miscommunication and issuance of an NOC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Srinivasan
The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RASMECC-CUM-SARC
State Bank of India
N SESHASAYEE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
