IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
ARUN MISHRA, J.
Ku. Archana Chauhan
Versus
State Bank of India, Jabalpur.
W.P. No. 3319 of 2006
Decided On : 7-3-2006.
Photograph - Publication of Borrowers' Photographs - The court found that the publication of photographs of borrowers who are defaulters by the State Bank of India was not impermissible or defamatory, and therefore dismissed the petition 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 issuance of demand notices and the requirement to make payment under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the publication of photographs of borrowers was not impermissible and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, hence dismissing the petition.
Issues: Publication of borrowers' photographs, issuance of demand notices, requirement to make payment, and availability of alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the publication of photographs of borrowers was not impermissible and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, therefore dismissing the petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.