Allowed

Dhiraj Jaiswal v. Development Credit Bank Limited and 2 Others

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022WP/35637/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 35637 of 2021, the High Court of Telangana issued a writ of mandamus directing the Development Credit Bank Limited to release the title deeds of mortgaged collateral properties belonging to the petitioner-guarantor within seven days, as the principal borrower had repaid the entire loan.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 1 to release title deeds within seven days of the order without referring to Income Tax communications.

Dhiraj Jaiswal Vs Development Credit Bank Limited and… — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P,SREE SUDHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 35637 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

DHIRAJ JAISWAL, Sio.Late Laxmi Pershad Jaiswal, Aged about 58^years, Occ. Business, R/o.5-4-736, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad-500001 ,

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Development Credit Bank Limited, Abids Branch, 30/1, Methodist Complex, Ground Floor, Abids, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500001.

¶11

Tax Recovery Officer-|, O/o. Pr. Commissioner of lncome Tax, Room No.227, 2nd Floor, Block B, lncome Tax Towers, A.C. Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad500004.

¶12

Deputy Commissioner Of lncome Tax, Circle-|, LB Stadium Road, Band Colony, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, Telangana-500004.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under. Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue Order or direction more^particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents more^particularly Respondent No.2 in illegally withholding the collateral security furnished by the Petitioner as Guarantor to the mortgage obtained by M/s.CAT Technologies Limited^(Principal Borrower), in spite of repaying^{the entire} loan amount by Principal Borrower, citing un-authoritative notices issued^by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and^violation of Article^{14, '19} and 21 of lndian Constitution and consequently direct the Respondent No.1^to release and handover Title Deeds of all the mortgaged collateral^properties of Wrjt Petitioner lying with Respondent No.1 without referring to any communication^issued by lncome Tax Department.

¶15

lA NO: 1 oF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt may be pleasedto direct} the Respondent No.1 to^{immediately release} and^{handoverTitle Deedsof all the} mortgaged collateral^properties of Writ Petitioner^{lying withRespondent No.1 without} referring to any communication issued by lncome Tax Department^{1.e., Respondent} Nos.2 and 3^pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. SUJITH JAISWAL

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: CHETLURU^SRINIVAS

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No's.2&3:^{SRl. B.NARSIMHA SARMA(SCFOR} INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT}

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON )URABLE SRIJUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶22

¶23

AND

¶24

HON(,URABI.E SMTIUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶25

W.P.No.35637 of 2021

¶26

Otdet't 1Pc, Honbt Si Jrctia lJjbf Bhgan)

¶27

FIeard M'. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioneq Ivlr. Yajur, leam :d counsel representing i&. Chetluru Srinivas, leamed counsel for res rcndent No.l; and lvlr. B.Narasimha Sarma, leamed Standing Cour seI for Income Tax Depanment appearing for respondents Nc 2 and 3.

¶28

On24.t2 2021, this Coun had summed up the grievance of the petitioner in the following nnnner

¶29

"Gr -"vance of the pedtioner is that respondent No.1 is under p essure from respondent Nos.2 and J to handover tide dee ls of the mongaged collatera.l propenies of the peritione ' to the Income Tax Depanment. According to leamed counsel for r.he petitioner, petitioner was the guarantc^' of the loan availed of by IvI/s CAT Technologies Limircd rom respondent No.1. The borrower has repaid the entire or standing dues. Therefore, respondent No.1 is under obligatio r toretum the dde deeds to the petitioner. Irstead, the Incr me Tax authorfuies are pressurizing respondent No.1. S'md of respondent No.l is that unless there is clearanct from the Income Tax authorides, it is not in a position to handover the title deeds to rhe petirioner. Mr, B.Narasimha Sarma, Ieamed Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tar Depanment submits on the basis o the wrinen irstructions that rhe borrower r21., M/s CAT Technologies Limited is an assessee in default. Therefor:, notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tar Act, 19( 1 was issued by the Income Tar aurhoriries ro respondt rt No.1 on 24.A2.2a20 for lttachment of bank

¶30

¶31

accounl^{of the defaulrer'Exceptthis' thereis no othermafier} Depanment' conceming^theIncomeTax Ttnt being^{ilte position,paz a Jn'ie' weare of the view} that withholding^{the title deeds of thepetitioner by} respondent^{No'1 tnay not be iustified"}

¶32

on 3 Today, leamed^{counsel for resPondent No'1 submits'} instructioru,^{that resPondentNo'1 would have no objectionto release} of title^{deeds of the} Petitioner'

¶33

That^{beingthe position, ttdirect respondent No'1to release} the title deeds^{of the petitioner, whichwere depositedwith respondent} No.l, **rile^{avaiJ-ing loan by M/s'CATTechnologies Limitedwithina} period of^{seven dap from the date of receiptof a copyofthis order'} 5. Vrit^{Petition is, accordingly' disposed of'Related interim} application^{is also disPosedof'}

¶34

\ To,

¶35

No^costs'

¶36

S DTMOHD.SANAUL LAH ANSARI ASSISTANT^REGIS //TRUE^COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶37

Development^{Credit BankLimited' Abids Branch'-30/1} '^{MethodistComplex'} ' 6;;;#ff, Auids, ttvderabad, Telansana- 500001'

¶38

Tax Recovery^{Officer-|, O/o' Pr' Commissioner-of lncom€Tax Room No'227'} 2nd Floor,^{Block B, lncome} '-";^{ilwer;'-n:C' b-uaiai'naasau rank' Hvderabad'} 500004.

¶39

. Bfi ,rH:r^?"J[,f.."i:r#j^{J:?"#?#] ?[B'fr! * Stadiu m Ro ad'Band co ronv'}

¶40

One^{CC to- SRl. SUJITH JAISWAL Advocate [OPUC]}

¶41

One^{CC to SRl. CHETLURU SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC]}

¶42

One CC^{to SRl. B.NARSIMHA SARMA(SCFORlNCOtilE TAX DEPARTMENT)'} Advocate [OPUCI

¶43

Two^{CD CoPies.}

¶44

One^{SPare CoPY.}

GB \k

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/022022

t"., .'r-...t Yt't U t -. i... ',..
- (.. '..
/ (...)''
I :--,
; i.l ,:) 1g rtB 212?

¶50

ORDER

¶51

WP.No.356i7^{of 202'l}

¶52

DISPOSING^{OF THE WP}

¶53

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶54

I -lz'
\q ?-

Dhiraj Jaiswal v. Development Credit Bank Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhiraj Jaiswal v. Development Credit Bank Limited and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Momin Mahaboob Liaquath Ali Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd. and 5 Others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

A. Murali Mukund Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Santosh Trading Company Vs The Kotak Mahindra Bank

Mrs. Bharathi Pathakoti Vs Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd., and another

M/s. Velagapudi Steels Limited. Vs Canara Bank (E Syndicate Bank)