The publication of borrowers' photographs by the State Bank of India was found to be permissible and not defamatory, and the petitioner was advised to pursue the alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:
Photograph - Publication of Borrowers' Photographs - The court found that the publication of photographs of the borrowers by the State Bank of India, as defaulters, was not impermissible or defamatory. The action was not deemed arbitrary or illegal, and the court found no ground to quash the publication.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the publication of their photograph by the State Bank of India, along with the demand notices and the initiation of action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the publication of the borrowers' photographs was not impermissible, arbitrary, or illegal, and found no ground to quash the publication. The petitioner was advised to avail the alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Issues: Publication of borrowers' photographs, validity of demand notices, initiation of action under the Act of 2002, availability of alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the publication of borrowers' photographs was not impermissible or defamatory, and advised the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to avail the alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

( 1 ) SHRI Riyaz Mohammad forpetitioner. Petitioner is assailing publication of the photograph (P-3) by the State Bank of India, by which photographs of borrowers have been published, who are the defaulters. They have been required to make payment of the amount due to the Bank as per publication (P-3 ). Further prayer made by the petitioner is that impugned demand notices (P-1) and (P-2) which have been issued be quashed and facility of making payment in installments be ordered. The action has been initiated under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2002) and the rules framed, thereafter, an amount of rs, 4,98,03687/- along with the interest is due to be paid. Notice (P-1) was issued on 13-11 -2004, now notice for sale or purchase of property has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 (2) read with Section 9 of the Act of 2002. Petitioner is having alternative remedy before the Debts recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the act of 2002, hence with respect to the notices no case for interference is made out. Petitioner if so advised, may avail the alternative remedy which is available.

( 2 ) WITH respect to the photographs, in the opinion of this Court publication of photographs of the borrowers cannot be said to be impermissible mode. Action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. It cannot be said to be defamatory publication made, hence I find no ground to quash the publication (P-3 ).

( 3 ) WRIT petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2006 Supreme(MP) 330

High Court Of Madhya PradeshARUN MISHA, J.KU.ARCHANA CHAUHAN - AppellantVersusSTATE BANK OF india, JABALPUR - RespondentsW. P. 3319 Of 2006Decided On : 03/07/2006

The publication of borrowers' photographs by the State Bank of India was found to be permissible and not defamatory, and the petitioner was advised to pursue the alternative remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Judicial Analysis

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
ARUN MISHA, J.
KU.ARCHANA CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF india, JABALPUR - Respondents
W. P. 3319 Of 2006
Decided On : 03/07/2006