TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 1406
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e extended financial facilities to the following, either as principal debtors, or, as guarantors thereof : (i) M/s Elcee Education Pvt. Ltd. Registered Office at : Chitrahar, 3, Naval Kishore Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow, U.P. (ii) Shri V.K. Bhatnagar S/o Shri P.P. Bhatnagar R/o 2/3, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, U.P. (iii) Mrs. Urvashi Malik W/o Shri S. Malik, R/o 6D, Shrinagar Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow, U.P. (iv) Mrs. Rekha Bhatnagar W/o Shri V.K. Bhatnagar R/o 2/3, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow, U.P. 4. On account of default in payments by these persons with regard to these facilities, proceedings by way of Original Application No.2000 were initiated under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ('the Act' hereafter) by the Lucknow Branch of the Canara Bank at the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Lucknow. The above four principal debtors/guarantors were arrayed as debtors. In these proceedings, in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-section 22 of Section 19 of the said Act, a certificate dated 7th March, 2006 was issued ordering that the applicant's bank i.e. Canara Bank at its said branch at Lucknow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his father was Dr. Chander Bhan Bhatnagar and that his wife's was Mrs. Komal Bhatnagar. It was made clear that the petitioner had no connection with the judgment debtor Mr. V.K. Bhatnagar who was son of Sh. P. P. Bhatnagar and a resident of Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The appellant also pointed out that the judgment debtor was married to Smt. Rekha Bhatnagar who was also JD No. IV. 10. Despite the said objections having admittedly been filed as back as on 14th September, 2015, no reply thereto was being filed by the Canara Bank to the utter dismay and difficulties of the petitioner who was a senior citizen, a resident of Delhi and was constrained to contest those proceedings in Lucknow from Delhi. 11. The petitioner additionally submitted a detailed representation dated 29th September, 2015 to the Canara Bank (respondent no.1 herein) as well as to the Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow (respondent no. 2 herein) seeking relief which was also of no avail. 12. Completely harassed, the petitioner has as a result preferred the present writ petition arraying the Canara Bank as the respondent no.1 and the Recovery Officer, DRT Lucknow as respondent no.2. It was pointed out that the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d later on excubated and shifted to the room after attainment of hemodynamically stable condition. Patient discharged today with follows up advise." (Emphasis by us) 14. It is the submission of the petitioner before us that the trauma on account of the attachment of his residential property had grossly aggravated the stress with which he was suffering rendering his medical condition extremely fragile. 15. We find that the respondents have been represented before this court right from the first date. On 31st January, 2017 while issuing formal notice, in the present writ petition, this court had observed as follows : "... It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has never borrowed any money from the respondent bank nor ever guaranteed any payment to the respondent bank. It is submitted that there has never been any transaction between the petitioner and the respondent bank. The only possible reason for issuance of the impugned order of attachment is the name of the petitioner, which is the same as the name of the Judgment Debtor No.2 in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. It is true that the writ petition is directed against an order issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P. Bhatnagar on the basis of this report. 17. We are absolutely appalled at the manner in which the respondent no.1 has proceeded in the matter. Even before us, the engagement of the private detective agency is being propounded as if this was ipso facto proof that the bank had taken sufficient care to ascertain the assets of its debtor or effected due diligence thereof. It is inconceivable as to how a financial institution could rely on a bald statement contained in a report without seeking copies of the title documents. Mere inspection of the records of the Registrar of Documents (freely available to the public) or the Municipal Authorities could have enabled verification of the correct ownership of the said property. These basic steps were admittedly not undertaken by the Canara Bank. 18. Bare perusal of the inspection of the title documents would have also disclosed parentage of the petitioner and would have established that the petitioner was not the 'V.K. Bhatnagar' who was owing money to the respondent no.1-Bank. 19. This is certainly a serious matter where the residential property of a senior citizen has been attached. Not only was the owner of the property which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y when this application was filed by the Canara Bank that the Recovery Officer has recorded an order of the same date which has been also placed by the Canara Bank before us. Unfortunately, the application which was filed by the Bank before the Recovery Officer has not been placed before us. However, we deem it appropriate to extract the order dated 7th March, 2017 which was recorded by the Recovery Officer and reads as follows : "Adv. Sh. S.K. Gupta BH of Sh. Vinay Shankar present for CH Bank and filed application dated 07/03/2017 for withdrawal of attachment order dated 14/09/2015 copy whereof supplied to Adv. Sh. Gaurav Bhatnagar who present on behalf of P.P.O. Sh. V.K. Bhatnagar Ld. counsel of P.P.O. also filed an application dated 07/03/2017 for disposal of its objection copy whereof supplied to the Ld. counsel of the CH Bank. CH Bank in its application dated 07/03/2017 annexed affidavit dated 07/03/2017 deposed by Alka Verma Mgr Law of the CH Bank wherein it is admitted that the property attached vide order dated 14/09/2015 is not concerned to the JD No.-2 and hence attachment should be withdrawn. It is on the record that the CH Bank has filed and supporting affidavit F-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereby avoided recovery of any amount from the principal debtor and the real defaulters. As a result of their mala fide and deliberate action, they have enabled the real debtors to go scot free, thereby causing a huge public loss. 28. The counter affidavit states that in compliance of the order dated 7th March, 2012 of the Recovery Officer, the Canara Bank has caused a publication to be effected in the Financial Express dated 19th March, 2017 wherein it is stated as follows : " Canara Bank ARM Branch Vipin Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010 PUBLIC NOTICE It is submitted that property Land & Building Plot/House No. H-26/2, Single Portion, Block-H, Plot No. 26/2, Sainik Farm, Ward-Deoli, Delhi owned by Shri V.K. Bhtnagar S/o Late Chander Bhan Bhatnagar R/o H-26/2, Lane W-10, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi-110062 was wrongly attached vide order dated 14.09.2016 passed by Recovery Officer II, DRT, Lucknow in DRC case No.40/06 Canara Bank Vs ELCEE Education Pvt. Ltd. & Others which has been released vide order dated 07.03.2017. The CH Bank i.e. Canara Bank ARMB, Lucknow regret for the aforesaid mistake which was not intentional." 29. This is little solace for som....