SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(MP) 326

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.

Advocates Appeared:
Riyaz Mohammad, for Petitioner.

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

Headnote:

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.

ORDER :- Shri Riyaz Mohammad for petitioner.

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top