IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.14352 OF 2021 M/s.F.A.Construction a partnership firm having its office at Plot No.112, 1st floor, 6^th Road, T.P.S. III, Khar West, Mumbai – 400 052. ….. Petitioner Vs.

Union Bank of India (earlier known as Andhra Bank)

having its branch at Raheja Construction “A” 24^th Road, Opp. Telephone Exchange, Khar West, Mumbai 400 052. ….. Respondent Mr. Ankita Singhania a/w Ms.Purvi Doctor, Ms.Shweta R. Rathod i/b M/s.Elixir Legal Services for the Petitioner Mr.Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Nainesh Amin i/b M/s.N.N.Amin and Co. for the Respondent CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.

RESERVED ON: JULY 11, 2022 PRONOUNCED ON: AUGUST 25, 2022 JUDGEMENT : (PER : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

1 Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

By consent of parties, Writ Petition is heard finally.

2 The petitioner seeks directions against the respondent bank to release the mortgage documents deposited in respect of the loan availed by the petitioner from Andhra Bank on the ground that the loan has been fully repaid.

3 The petitioner claims to have mortgaged the assets with Andhra Bank, Bandra West Branch as a security for the loan availed by it under the Stand-up India Scheme from respondent bank for an amount of Rs.98,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs Only). The petitioner had created mortgage by deposit of title deeds and Overdraft (OD) account was created for mortgage loan having OD Account No.113930100012303. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner repaid the outstanding loan amount towards full and final settlement. As the repayment of the loan was made, the petitioner addressed a letter dated August 29, 2020 for release of the mortgage documents of the property owned by M/s.Nircon Construction. The same was refused on the ground that the bank has a general lien and that the petitioner and their associate concerns are having account with respondent bank, Santacruz Branch and the said amount is to be repaid.

4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan account for which the mortgage was created as a security, is fully paid and settled with the erstwhile Andhra Bank. The respondent did not have any right to withheld the documents for some other loan. The learned counsel submits that it is obvious on the part of the bank to contend that it has a general lien over the assets that came to its hand in the normal course of business for unpaid debts of any other account. The learned counsel, to buttress her submissions relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in case of Surendra s/o Laxman Nikose vs. Chief Manager & Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, Nagpur.1 So also, another judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Mr.Sunil s/o Ratnakar Gutte vs. Union Bank of India delivered at Nagpur dated June 13, 2022 in Writ Petition No.32 of 2022. The learned counsel submits that if the bank fails to return the documents even after paying the dues then the Writ Petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India vs. Devi Ispat Limited and Others²

5 Mr.Damle the learned Senior Advocate for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner does not have locus standi to file the present petition inasmuch as the title deeds were deposited by M/s.Nircon Construction as a security for the credit facility granted to the petitioner by the respondent bank. M/s.Nircon Construction

1 2013(5) Mh.L.J. 283 2 (2010) 11 SCC 186 has not approached the court for release of their security. The title deeds held by the bank can be handed over to the owner / mortgagor at its instance. The petitioner does not have locus standi to file the present petition. The learned Senior Advocate submits that two original applications are already filed before DRT and are pending. It is submitted that the mortgagor, while entering into written contract