2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 908
$~32
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
W.P.(C) 86/2024 & CM APPL. 349/2024
M/S THREAD AND NEEDLES AND ANR
..... Petitioners
Through:
Ms. Pratiti Rungta and Mr. Sumit
Pargal, Advocates.
versus
CANARA BANK AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
PRASHANT SINGH
%
04.01.2024
1.
The present writ petition has been filed against the email dated 20th
December, 2023 issued by respondent no. 2-bank, whereby the respondent
no. 2 informed the petitioners that both the loan accounts against which the
title documents of property being land which is part of Khewat No. 522,
Khata No. 589, Killa No. 40//15/2/3 (0-7), 16/1(1-5), Waka Moja Ferozpur
Bangar, Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt Sonipat was deposited as collateral
security, have been fully discharged. However, title deeds cannot be released
in view of the instructions given by the respondent no. 1- bank to retain the
said title deeds by treating it as general security for the purposes of recovery
of amounts due against another loan account in the name of M/s Thread and
More India (Partnership firm) maintained with respondent No. 1 at Delhi.
2.
It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid property in
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 20:03:39
question was not given as security towards the loan account i.e. M/s Thread
and More India and therefore the same cannot be retained by the
respondents by treating the same as general lien for another loan account of
a different firm.
3.
It is submitted that inspite of issuance of No Dues Certificate dated
22nd December, 2023 in the loan accounts of M/s Thread and Needles i.e. the
petitioner no. 1 and of M/s Arisha Merchandise i.e. the petitioner no.2 where
the property in question was given as collateral, by the impugned action of
respondent no. 2, the title documents of the property in question have not
been released on instructions of respondent no. 1 thereby exercising right of
general lien. It is submitted that the said action is against the settled position
of law as enunciated by various Courts.
4.
It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 by email dated 22nd
December, 2023 has informed the petitioner regarding receipt of email dated
19th December, 2023 from respondent no.1, wherein it is stated that the title
documents of the property in question cannot be released as one loan
account i.e. M/s Thread and More India, which is a Partnership Firm is
being maintained at Vikaspuri Branch where Mr. Amit Garg, proprietor of
petitioner no. 1, stood as a guarantor and that the partnership loan account is
declared as Non Performing Asset (“NPA”). It is submitted that the said
action of the respondent is not as per law and the said action of not releasing
the title documents of the property in question is illegal.
5.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to the judgment dated 5th
September, 2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in Writ
Appeal No. 246 of 2020, wherein it has been held as follows:
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/01/2024 at 20:03:39
“XXX XXX XXX
19.
In order that the general lien may be excluded by a
special agreement, whether express or implied from the
circumstances, the agreement must be clearly inconsistent
with the existence of such a lien. Where the contract
between a borrower and his bank specifically showed that
the property was given as security only for a particular
transaction, the bank could not hold it as security for
repayment of another loan.
XXX XXX XXX”
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment
dated 9th August, 2017 passed by the High Court Madras (Madurai Bench)
in W.P.(MD) No. 12613/2016, wherein it has been held as follows:
“XXX XXX XXX
30.
Hence this Court is of the firm view that the
respondent bank cannot exercise right of lien to secure any
other liabilities of the mortgagor by retaining the documents
of the mortgagor or guarantor, which are deposited with an
intention to secure a particular loan transaction. Lien is
primarily considered