Important Point – Act of attachment of property is a serious matter.

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The instant case reflects an extremely sorry state of affairs with regard to the manner in which the Canara Bank has conducted itself. We first set out the factual matrix, to the extent necessary, and as is discernible from the respondent no.1 before us.

2. This writ petition has been filed by V.K. Bhatnagar, s/o Dr. Chander Bhan Bhatnagar a permanent resident of H-26/2, Sainik Farm, Ward Deoli, Delhi-110062. The writ petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of this sole residential property.

3. We note the essential facts giving rise to this writ petition hereafter. A branch of the Canara Bank situated at 4, Sapru Marg, Lucknow, U.P. appears to have 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 was entitled to recover Rs.12,00,099.48 together with pendente lite and future interest @ 19.25% per annum with quarterly rest from 19th January, 2000 till full realisation from the debtors. The certificate also permitted the Bank that in case the debt amount is not recovered from the sale of the “mortgaged and hypothecated properties”, then the bank would be entitled to recover the same “by selling the other personal assets/properties of the debtor nos. 1 to 4”.

5. Having failed to recover the amount, it appears that the respondent no.1 thereafter sought attachment of the property of the judgment debtor no.2 i.e. the aforementioned Sh. V.K. Bhatnagar. We extract hereunder the specification of the property which the Canara Bank sought to be attached :

“SPECIFICATION OF UNCHARGED PROPERTY

Land & Building being Plot / House No.H-26/2, Single Portion, Block - H, Plot No.26/2, Sainik Farm, Ward - Deoli, Delhi, owned by Sri Vinod Kumar Bhatnagar, the J.D.No.2”

6. Based on this representation of the respondent no.1 - Bank, the Recovery Officer, DRT, Lucknow issued a warrant of attachment dated 14th September, 2015 attaching the said property towards recovery of the above debt of M/s Elcee Education Pvt. Ltd. and the aforedetailed persons. This warrant of attachment was executed by affixation at the said scheduled premises.

7. The petitioner has stated that apart from the affixation of the attachment, the respondent no.1 effected proclamation and announcement of the attachment using loudspeakers at the subject property, to the utter consternation and humiliation of the petitioner and his family who were occupying the said property. The petitioner learnt of the said attachment from these actions on behalf of the respondent No.1.

8. The petitioner was thereby compelled to file objections against the order of attachment before the recovery officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow seeking vacation of the attachment and informing him that he had no connection at all with M/s Elcee Education Pvt. Ltd. and that he had no financial dealings and had never been involved in any transactions with the Canara Bank. The petitioner had declared tha