A writ petition challenging a bank's recovery actions, alleging signature forgery and harassment. The court held it cannot discharge guarantors while the loan is outstanding, as petitioners must pursue remedies in appropriate forums.
Writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue other remedies open under law.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 10777 OF 2012
Friday, the Third Day of August, Two Thousand and Twelve
Between
Smt. Hajeera Begum and another
Petitioner
AND
The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shah Ali Banda Branch, Hyderabad and another
Respondents
ORAL ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in harassing the petitioners and interfering with their daytoday business with a consequential prayer to direct the first respondent to discharge the petitioners as guarantors from the Loan Account No. 125/556, availed by second respondent.
It is the case of the petitioners that the second respondent has borrowed loan amount from the first respondent bank and the petitioners offered securities owned by them to secure the repayment of the loan. It is also the case of the petitioners that the second respondent has forged their signatures and executed the documents under the guise of which the first respondent is harassing the petitioners for recovery of the loan amount from them.
A perusal of the notice, dated 1.3.2011, placed on record by the petitioners, shows that an amount of Rs.14.00 lakhs was availed by the second respondent for the purpose of working capital under the Loan Overdraft Account No. 125/556. Though it is alleged by the petitioners that the loan was obtained by forging their signatures, it is not possible to record any such finding in this writ petition filed by them. Inasmuch as it is stated that the petitioners have filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent for forging their signatures, it is for the investigating agency to investigate into the allegations made by them. When the loan amounts are not repaid and for the balance outstanding overdue, if notice is issued for recovery of the amount of Rs.4,61,985/-, it cannot be said that harassment is meted out to them. When the documents are executed to secure the loan amount for the second respondent and when it is open for
the petitioners to pursue the relief in an appropriate forum, in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot issue any direction to the first respondent to discharge the petitioners as guarantors when the entire loan amount is not repaid. Granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the other remedies open under law, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J.
August 03, 2012 MAS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can issue a direction to discharge petitioners as guarantors when the loan amount is not repaid and they have pursued other remedies.
Whether issuing a notice for recovery of the outstanding balance from guarantors constitutes harassment justifying intervention under Article 226.
What is the appropriate forum for claiming relief based on alleged forgery of signatories in loan documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Hajeera Begum and another
The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Shah Ali Banda Branch, Hyderabad and another
R.Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
