SANJIB BANERJEE, J

(1) The petitioners question the propriety of the respondent nationalised bank withholding documents of title that the petitioners had furnished for obtaining credit facilities, despite the petitioners having squared up and closed the accounts at the banks behest.

(2) Between September 15, 2008 and April 24, 2009 the bank advised the petitioner company to shift its borrowings to some other bank. The first letter in such regard that the petitioners rely on is one dated March 24, 2009 where the bank complained to the petitioner company that despite its assurance in August, 2008, the companys accounts had not been shifted from the bank. On April 24, 2009 the bank called upon the company to remove its accounts. The insistence on the banks part appears plain from the letter:

"We had, on several occasions in the past, advised you to arrange for the shifting of your borrowal A/cs to other bank. However it appears that you have not taken any steps in this regard so far. Our higher authorities have now instructed us to have discussion with Sri Nirmal Kumar Mandhani, Director of your company about the shifting of the borrowal A/cs and other issues relating to the operation of your borrowal accounts. Further your Director Sri Nirmal Kumar Mandhani is also required for further discussion with our executives at zonal office, Kolkata and Central Office with prior appointment. You are, therefore, requested to arrange for our immediate discussion with your Director, Sri Nirmal Kumar Mandhani, at our office within 2-3 days as the matter is very urgent."

(3) By the beginning of May the petitioners caused the accounts to be closed and the company instructed the bank to make over the title deeds to the companys factory premises and other collateral security to the second petitioner. The petitioners rely on the bank statements to demonstrate that the company owed nothing to the bank. On May 12, 2009 the company wrote to both the Zonal Manager and the Branch Manager of the bank that the companys borrowals had been taken over by the Chowringhee Branch of State Bank of India. The letter recorded that a bankers cheque for Rs.15 crore issued by State Bank had been encashed by the respondent bank and appropriated against the companys outstanding balances. The company complained that inspite such adjustments having been completed by May 9, 2009 the title deeds and the customary no-objection and no-dues certificates had not been made over to it by the respondent bank

(4) The petitioners say that the respondent bank was aware that the petitioner company had obtained credit facilities from State Bank to clear off its debt to the respondent bank. They submit that a certificate had been issued by the respondent bank in the companys favour on January 12, 2009, certifying the creditworthiness of the company. The petitioners insist that they could not gauge why the respondent bank retained the title deeds despite having no claims against the company. They refer to the three letters issued in a span of ten days by the company to the bank. The last of such letters of May 16, 2009 complained:

"As you are aware and also requested repeatedly by us, we are yet to receive the above documents in spite of our account being adjusted on 09.05.09. We refer and enclose herewith the copy of your last branch letter No. AGM/88/09-10/70 DATED 24.04.09 wherein it is clearly specified to shift our account to some other bank. Since now we have shifted, you are not handing over the above documents to us and delaying such handing over by stating that you are yet to receive consent from central office at Mumbai. Your above branch letter can only be written to us after having such consent from central office/zonal office. We understand that delay in handing over the documents is intentional and deliberate. We request you to immediately handover our above requested and required documents."

(5) A further demand for the return of the security documents was made