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

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

Advocates:
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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top