The bank must return title deeds once dues are settled; it cannot exercise general lien over securities unrelated to the borrower's specific loans without explicit agreements.

COMMON ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,) W.P.Nos.5275 and 5276 of 2018 are filed against the order passed by DRAT, Chennai, in M.A.Nos.151 & 152 of 2017 dated 14.12.2017.

2. W.P.No.3419 of 2018 is filed to quash the portion of the impugned order passed in M.A.No.152 of 2017 dated 14.12.2017 by DRAT, Chennai, in directing the first respondent bank to return the title deeds belonging to the petitioner herein.

3. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.5275 and 5276 of 2018 is as follows:-

The petitioner, namely, M/s.Omega Cables Limited, which is a Public Limited Company, had requested the first respondent bank for a term loan of Rs.20 crores to meet out the cost of preliminary works for development of its property at Ambattur Industrial Estate. Based on the said request, the first respondent bank, through its Industrial Finance Branch, sanctioned one-time cash credit of Rs.15 Crores by their letter dated 24.01.2013. The securities offered by the petitioner company were movable and immovable assets, apart from the land admeasuring 16.31 acres situated at Ambattur Industrial Estate. The petitioner company had also executed loan agreements, apart from guarantee agreement. The first respondent bank, by letter dated 01.02.2016 and 17.02.2016, asked the petitioner company to settle the one-time cash credit facility immediately, and further informed that if the amount is not settled within 15 days from the date of the letter, they would proceed under the SARFAESI Act against the petitioner company. In order to settle the debts due to the first respondent bank, the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with one company, namely, M/s.ETA Star Infopark to jointly develop the land, to which, the said M/s.ETA Star Infopark agreed to pay the dues to the first respondent bank and thereby, clear the security.

4. In furtherance of the Memorandum of Understanding, the said M/s.ETA Star Infopark remitted a sum of Rs.15,15,19,500/- on 22.03.2016 by way of RTGS, including the outstanding interest amounts till then. Thereafter, by letter dated 29.04.2016, the petitioner company approached the respondent bank to release the original documents and to provide statement of accounts, confirmation of balance and no due certificate. The first respondent bank did not reply to that letter immediately, and later, by its letter dated 04.05.2016, confirmed that the account has been closed on 29.03.2016 enclosing a statement of accounts showing NIL balance. However, the first respondent bank did not issue any No Due Certificate and return the original documents which were given as security for availing the above loan. The petitioner seems to have received a notice in O.A.No.607 of 2016 from the file of the Debt Recovery Tribunal - II, Chennai, which was filed by the respondent bank, praying for an order to recover a sum of Rs.77,91,96,968.90/- from certain third parties. However, the petitioner company was not made as a party in the said O.A. proceedings.

5. The petitioner company came to know that I.A.No.637 of 2016 in O.A.No.607 of 2016 came to be filed by the first respondent bank, seeking an interim injunction restraining the petitioner company who was arrayed as 15th respondent therein, from alienating or encumbering over the schedule mentioned property. After coming to know that the petitioner's name is arrayed in the said I.A., the petitioner company seems to have filed I.A.No.143 of 2017 in I.A.No.637 of 2016 in O.A.No.607 of 2016, praying to delete it's name which was arrayed as 15th respondent in I.A.No.637 of 2016 and seeking a direction to the first respo