Sarojan Chandran and another Vs Mr. Pankaj

Pankaj Branch Manager State Bank of India Anna Nagar West Branch Old No.114, New No.274 AE Block 10^th Main Road, 4^th Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 .. Respondent

¶10

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order dated 30.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.32228 of 2024.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.Krishna Ravindran For Respondent : Mr.K.Chandrasekaran Standing Counsel

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Cont. P. No.1822 of 2025

¶16

The issue involved in the present Contempt Petition is that the petitioners are the mother and daughter. The property was purchased by the 1^st petitioner’s husband. He availed of a housing loan from the respondent Bank and has executed a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (MODT) dated 27.09.2013. He died intestate, leaving behind the petitioners and one son viz ., Prasanna Kumar Chandran. The housing loan was repaid back and the loan account was also closed on 04.05.2023.

¶17

The petitioners were requesting for the release of the original documents and they also expressed their willingness to execute indemnity bond. The Bank was insisting that the son who is living abroad must also be present and the documents will be handed over only in the presence of all the three legal heirs. It is under these circumstances, a writ petition came to be filed before this Court.

¶18

The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.12.2024

¶19

and this Court directed the respondent Bank to issue notice to the said Prasanna Kumar Chandran and seek for his reply regarding the release of the original documents and if there is no response, the respondent Bank shall return all the original documents submitted by the original borrower who is the husband of

¶20

2/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Cont. P. No.1822 of 2025

¶23

the 1^st petitioner, to the petitioners. This contempt petition has been filed on the

¶24

ground that the above direction was not complied with by the respondent Bank.

¶25

The respondent Bank has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, they have stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, a letter was sent to the said Prasanna Kumar Chandran and he has sent an e-mail stating that the document should not be released to the petitioners. Hence, the respondent Bank was not able to take any decision.

¶26

In the considered view of this Court, the son who is sitting in U.K. is virtually preventing his mother and sister from receiving the documents, in spite of the fact that the entire loan amount has been settled. Even if the documents are released to the petitioners, they will not be able to deal with the property, since the son also has one-third share in the property. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused, if the documents are released in favour of the petitioners.

¶27

In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondent Bank to release the documents in favour of the petitioners and it is made clear that the inter se dispute between the petitioners on the one side and the son of the petitioner on the other, will not in any way affect the rights of the

¶28

3/5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Cont. P. No.1822 of 2025

¶31

respondent Bank, since the documents are going to be released only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. Whatever documents are required to be executed by both the parties shall be executed, before the title documents are released in favour of the petitioners.

¶32

With the above direction, this contempt petition is closed.

¶33

27.06.2025

¶34

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No gya

¶35

4/5

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Cont. P. No.1822 of 2025