Bank cannot threaten publication of borrowers' identities; interim monthly deposits allowed pending debt tribunal adjudication.

A bank cannot threaten to publish borrowers' photographs and names in newspapers or other places where such action lacks legal authority and infringes privacy and dignity protected by Article 21; the impugned communication was quashed. Pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the Court also allowed monthly deposits as an interim measure, directing provisional adjustment first against principal and then interest, while leaving the Tribunal free to ermine final adjustment and further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the bank could threaten publication of the borrowers' photographs and names in newspapers and other places; (ii) whether the writ petitioners should be permitted to make monthly deposits pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and how such sums were to be adjusted.

Issue (i): Whether the bank could threaten publication of the borrowers' photographs and names in newspapers and other places.

Analysis: The threatened publication was examined against the backdrop of earlier decisions holding that a bank has no authority under the SARFAESI regime to publish photographs of defaulters and that such publication infringes personal privacy and dignity protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned letter continued the threat of publication despite those decisions.

Conclusion: The impugned letter could not be sustained and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitioners should be permitted to make monthly deposits pending adjudication before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and how such sums were to be adjusted.

Analysis: The request for a temporary payment arrangement was treated as an interim measure without pronouncing on the validity or sufficiency of the one time settlement or on the merits of the pending dispute before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court directed monthly payment toward pro tanto satisfaction, with initial adjustment first against principal and thereafter interest, while keeping the Tribunal free to issue final directions on adjustment and further proceedings.

Conclusion: Monthly deposits were permitted, the mode of adjustment was directed in the stated sequence, and the Tribunal's authority on the pending dispute was preserved.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the threat of publication was set aside, while a protective interim payment mechanism was put in place without affecting the parties' rights before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: A bank cannot threaten publication of a defaulter's photograph and identity where such action is unsupported by law and infringes Article 21, and interim payment directions may be issued without deciding the merits of a pending settlement dispute.

---