Publication of defaulter photographs by the Bank is legal under specified Regulations and does not breach privacy or defamation laws.

1. The borrower has preferred this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the respondent - State Bank of India (for short 'the Bank') of publishing photographs of the petitioners in the newspapers declaring them as defaulter is illegal and without any authority of law; to issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Bank from publishing such photographs and from adopting extra legal means of publishing photographs to recover the dues from the petitioners.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a company whereas the petitioners No.2 & 3 are its Directors. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of MS CTD Bar, Round, Angle, Channel, Flat, Square, etc. In order to fulfill its working capital, it applied for and was sanctioned cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 275 lacs and SME credit plus to the tune of Rs.25 lacs in December, 2008. A residential house originally mortgaged in another loan account of M/s Mohan Marketing was also made applicable in the subject loan accounts. The limit was enhanced by Rs.55 lacs in August, 2009, which was further enhanced by Rs.9 lacs in October, 2009. In November, 2010 the cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs.375 lacs and upon repayment of earlier enhanced limit of Rs.55 lacs, the total enhanced facility stood at Rs.409 lacs. According to the petitioners, on account of slackness in the global steel market the petitioner also suffered paucity of raw material effecting its business, resulting in default of repayment.

3. The Bank served a demand notice on 31.01.2012 for Rs.4.15 crores (approx.) under S.13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act, 2002') and thereafter, proceeding under S.13 (4) of the Act, 2002 for recovery of the mortgaged property was initiated. Possession of two other properties were also allegedly taken on 01.09.2012. The Bank also proceeded to issue a notice on 31.05.2013 threatening the petitioners that the decision has been taken by the competent authority to publish the photographs of borrowers and guarantors in the leading newspapers. On petitioner's reply, the Bank again sent a letter to the petitioners on 18.06.2013 that the steps for publication of photographs in the newspapers / notice board of the Bank is being done as per the Bank's extant instructions. A similar notice was served on the petitioners on 15.07.2013 also, which led to filing of complaint by the petitioner before the Urla Police Station, Raipur on 29.07.2013.

4. It has been urged by Shri Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the impugned action of the respondent Bank is not only illegal, but is defamatory and has no sanction under the provisions of the Act, 2002 or the Rules made thereunder. Learned counsel would rely upon the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Ujjal Kumar Das and Another. v. State Bank of India and Others, WP. 10315 (W) of 2013 and Kerala High Court in Venu. P.R. v. The Assistant General Manager, WP (C) No. 10864 / 2013(G) and other connected matter i.e. WP (C) No. 17081/2013.

5. Per contra, Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, would submit that the Bank has not committed any illegality nor the action has the effect of defaming the petitioner. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ku. Archana Chauhan v. State Bank of India , 2007 AIR (MP) 45, and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in D.J. Exim (India) Pvt. L