Telangana High Court
WP/27794/2009 of Dr.Lily ERodrigues Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Kalyan Nagar Branch, on 31 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27794 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner obtained loan of Rs.10 lakhs from the respondent-Bank, for the purpose of establishing a Nursing Home. She has mortgaged certain immovable properties, as a security for repayment. She states that the
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.27794 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The 1[st] petitioner obtained loan of Rs.10 lakhs from therespondent-Bank, for the purpose of establishing a Nursing Home. She has mortgaged certain immovable properties, as a security forrepayment. She states that the clinic ran properly for sometime, butthereafter, its functioning was affected, and that the same has resultedin default, in payment of instalments. Respondent filed O.A.No.136 of2005 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the sameresulted in an order, dated 09.11.2006, holding that the petitioners areliable to pay a sum of Rs.19,90,600/-. Proceedings under theSecuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets andEnforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, have also been initiated. InRecovery Petition No.61 of 2007, an order was passed on 01.09.2009,requiring the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.29,20,121/-. The limitedgrievance, on account of which, the petitioners approached this Courtis that, in spite of their repeated demands, the respondent has notfurnished the statement of account, and accordingly, they seekdirections.
Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners,and Sri P.Badri Premnath, learned Standing Counsel for therespondent.
The 1[st] petitioner availed the loan of Rs.10 lakhs, from therespondent, but committed default in repayment of the same. Sheclaims to have paid substantial amount, and submits that, default cameto be committed due to reasons beyond her control. On the applicationsubmitted by the petitioners for furnishing the details, the respondentissued a reply, dated 21.11.2009, stating that the petitioners have to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, to know the details. This istotally improper. It is the respondent that has initiated the proceedingsfor recovery. As a loanee, the 1[st] petitioner is entitled to demand thestatement of account. Refusal to furnish the same would amount to anillegal practice and it may even warrant action by the Reserve Bank ofIndia. Such a conduct would also make one to believe that properaccount was not maintained and the respondent has furnished inflatedfigures. The mere fact that proceedings were initiated before DRT,does not make any difference, particularly when the petitioners submitthat the proceedings are almost ex parte in nature.
Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondent isdirected to furnish the statement of account to the petitioners within aperiod of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Tillsuch time, the respondent shall not take any coercive steps against thepetitioners to recover the amount due.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.31-12-2009.GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.