Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Lawyer not issuing NOC to customer - The primary issue is the refusal or delay by the financier or bank to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC), which hampers the customer's ability to dispose of or transfer the vehicle or property. In several cases, such as ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"], ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"], and ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"], courts have recognized that banks or financiers often withhold NOC due to outstanding dues or other legal claims, citing their lien rights. For example, ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"] states, the bank has rightly withheld the NOC when there were other dues of the credit card against the complainant, and ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"] notes, the OP was having a general lien and as per agreement, no NOC could be issued to the complainant with regard to the vehicle loan account.
Legal rights and procedures for customers - Customers can approach the RTO or relevant authorities for directions or orders to obtain or consider issuance of NOC, even if the financier refuses. Courts have sometimes directed authorities to consider applications for transfer or renewal despite the absence of NOC, as seen in ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"] and ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"]. In some instances, if the financier denies NOC, the RTO or authorities may act based on the application or consider transfer as a private matter, but the customer must follow due process. For example, The Lok Ayukta has directed to the RTO to consider the application for transfer of the vehicle as private carriage without the production of NOC ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"].
Bank's lien and legal constraints - Courts have clarified that banks or financiers hold a general lien over securities or properties until dues are cleared. For instance, ["Magma Fincorp Ltd.& other vs Manjit Singh - Consumer State"] states, the NOC was not issued to the complainant simply on the ground that he was guarantor in some other loan case, and the bank has a general lien over all securities deposited by the customer. Similarly, ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"] emphasizes that the OP was having a general lien and as per agreement, no NOC could be issued.
Implications of non-issuance of NOC - Customers often face legal or procedural hurdles due to the financier's refusal. Courts have held that in cases where dues are cleared, NOC should be issued, but if the bank or financier withholds it due to outstanding dues or legal claims, the customer may need to seek legal remedy or direction from authorities ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"], ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"].
Procedural and ethical considerations - It is important that advocates and clients follow proper procedures, such as obtaining 'NOC' from previous advocates before changing representation ["Beta @ Bibekananda @ Santosh Hansdah @ Santosh Hansda VS State Of Odisha - Orissa"], and that banks or financiers adhere to legal standards before withholding NOC, especially after dues are paid ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"].
Analysis and Conclusion:When a financier or bank refuses to issue a NOC without justified reasons such as outstanding dues, the customer can file a complaint or approach relevant authorities like the RTO or courts for directions. Courts generally recognize the lien rights of financiers but also emphasize that once dues are cleared, NOC should be issued. Customers should ensure proper procedural compliance, and legal remedies are available if the financier unreasonably withholds NOC. In cases of dispute, courts have directed authorities to consider applications for transfer or renewal even in the absence of NOC, provided the dues are settled or the legal position supports the customer ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"], ["K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD - Consumer State"].
Imagine finally closing a deal or transferring property, only to hit a roadblock because your lawyer refuses to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC). This frustrating scenario leaves many clients wondering: A lawyer not giving NOC to customer, what I will do? You're not alone, and the good news is that Indian law provides clear protections and remedies grounded in principles of natural justice. This post breaks down your rights, actionable steps, and insights from key cases to help you navigate this issue.
Important Disclaimer: This article offers general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your specific situation.
A No Objection Certificate (NOC) is a crucial document issued by a lawyer, authority, or financier confirming no objections to a client's proposed action, such as property transfer, loan closure, vehicle sale, or business setup. Once granted, it often creates a vested right that cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn. In lawyer-client relationships, an NOC might be needed to confirm the lawyer has no pending claims, liens, or objections related to their services.
Refusal or withholding without due process can stall important transactions, leading to financial losses or delays. Courts have consistently ruled that such actions must comply with natural justice, particularly the right to a hearing before any adverse decision. Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758
The cornerstone of NOC disputes is the principle of natural justice, which mandates that no adverse order—like refusing or withdrawing an NOC—can be passed without giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard. As emphasized in a key ruling:
It is a basic principle of natural justice that a party needs to be heard before the passing of any adverse orders, which affect the rights of the party. That is to say no order can be passed against a person without hearing such person. A 'No Objection Certificate' earlier granted cannot be withdrawn without hearing the party to whom a 'No Objection Certificate' has been granted. Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758
This applies squarely to lawyers. If your lawyer unjustifiably withholds an NOC, it may violate these principles, rendering the refusal illegal. Courts view NOCs as conferring legal permissions, and unilateral actions undermine client rights. Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758
Additionally, procedural safeguards require reasons for refusal and timely decisions. For instance, appeals against NOC refusals must involve a hearing and resolution within stipulated times. Vimal Sudarshan Bafna VS State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Revenue & Forest Department - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 679
Don't panic—several legal avenues exist to compel issuance:
Act promptly, as time limits apply. Gather evidence like payment proofs, communications, and prior agreements.
While lawyer-specific NOC cases are niche, precedents from finance, consumer, and regulatory contexts reinforce the same principles. These show courts' intolerance for arbitrary refusals:
Lawyer ethics cases further underscore duties: Bar resolutions refusing briefs (analogous to NOC withholding) are null and void, as lawyers must defend clients without prejudice. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences. Dharmendra Singh Parihar VS Narayan Prasad Pandey - 2022 Supreme(MP) 334A. S. Mohammed Rafi VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Home Dept. - 2010 8 Supreme 720
These illustrate a pattern: Authorities, including lawyers, cannot withhold NOCs arbitrarily. Affected parties successfully sought judicial intervention. Vimal Sudarshan Bafna VS State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Revenue & Forest Department - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 679Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758
Not all refusals are unlawful. Exceptions include:- Fraud or Misrepresentation: NOC can be canceled without hearing if proven, but grounds must be established legally. Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758- Conditional NOCs: Withdrawal may require notice and hearing.- Pending Dues: Legitimate claims (e.g., unpaid fees) justify refusal, but with proper notice and opportunity to respond.
Always demand written reasons for refusal to assess validity.
To resolve or prevent issues:1. Communicate in Writing: Send a registered notice demanding NOC with a deadline, citing natural justice.2. Document Everything: Keep records of payments, agreements, and prior NOC promises.3. Escalate Quickly: File writs or complaints within limits; delays weaken claims.4. Future-Proof Dealings: Insist on procedural compliance and clear terms in engagement letters.5. Seek Independent Advice: Engage another lawyer to review and pursue remedies.
In power sector bids, knowing no NOC yet proceeding led to penalties—highlighting diligence. M/S HNV CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED. vs RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSON & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 84M/S HNV CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED. vs RAJASTHAN ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSON & Ors - 2024 Supreme(Online)(APTEL) 380
Facing this issue? Empower yourself with knowledge and take decisive steps. For personalized guidance, consult a legal expert today.
References:- Narayana S. G. S/o Sri. Ganapathi Rao VS State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries (MSME & MINES), Vikasa Soudha Bangalore - 2021 0 Supreme(Kar) 758: NOC withdrawal requires hearing.- Vimal Sudarshan Bafna VS State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary Revenue & Forest Department - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 679: Procedural safeguards for refusals.- Additional cases: K.REGHUNATHAN vs M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIMUS LTD, Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd vs Jagjeet Saini s/o Chhaju Ram Saini, Devaguptam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2022 Supreme(AP) 18, Dharmendra Singh Parihar VS Narayan Prasad Pandey - 2022 Supreme(MP) 334, A. S. Mohammed Rafi VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Home Dept. - 2010 8 Supreme 720
#LawyerNOC, #LegalRemedies, #ClientRights
Without considering the same 1st opposite party issued a Lawyer Notice dated 7.10.04 demanding an amount of Rs.8508. 33 Because of the non issuing of NOC and form No.35 the complainant could not dispose off the vehicle. ... The RTO has directed the complainant to send a registered letter to the financier requesting to issue NOC and produce acknowledgment card as the complainant had not produced the acknowledgment card. ... But he produced a letter from the Manager, customer care ....
dates it did not have the NOC. ... Learned counsel of Respondents submitted that Appellant claim of inadvertent mistake in giving schedule to DISCOM is not tenable as Appellant is regularly availing power under Open Access and inspite of knowing it does not have a NOC, yet submitted a bid and schedule for 24.06.2016 and 25.06.2016. ... Thus, as per existing Regulation, there is no differentiation whether there is inadvertent mistake in giving schedule to DISCOM and IE....
dates it did not have the NOC. ... Learned counsel of Respondents submitted that Appellant claim of inadvertent mistake in giving schedule to DISCOM is not tenable as Appellant is regularly availing power under Open Access and inspite of knowing it does not have a NOC, yet submitted a bid and schedule for 24.06.2016 and 25.06.2016. ... Thus, as per existing Regulation, there is no differentiation whether there is inadvertent mistake in giving schedule to DISCOM and IE....
Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken a car loan from the opposite party and he had re-paid all the installments but the NOC was not being issued by the opposite party. ... The opposite party has supported its version with affidavit giving details of the credit cards issued to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit has not chosen to rebut these facts. ... By Mercantile system the bank has a general lien over all funds of securities or negotiable ins....
It denied that NOC was ever issued to the appellant but asserted that NOC was issued to the new customer of the vehicle and the appellant somehow obtained copy of NOC and concocted a false story. ... If the appellant had defaulted and had not paid the loan amount in full, NOC would not have been issued in his name and language of the NOC would not have been as it is. ... It also denied that NOC was ever issued to h....
Act and also that, the RTO has refused to renew the permit, on the sole ground that the NOC was not issued by the financier, or not. The District Forum did not consider the various Sections referred to above under the M.V. Act, before passing the impugned Order. ... Even if the financier had denied the NOC or expressed its dissent, the RTO has all authority to consider the renewal subject to the provisions under Sec. 81(4). He further canvassed that the lower forum passed the Order without ....
Only the gram Panchayat/R.5 has not issued ‘NOC” stating that the villagers have objected for the installation of Customer Petrol Bunk. 10. The petitioner’s Society submitted an application to respondent No.5 on 12.10.2021. ... As such, learned Standing Counsel contended that in view of the objections of the villagers, ‘NOC’ is not issued to the petitioner. 7. ... On 07.01.2021, when Respondent No.5 conducted Grama Sabha regarding issuance of ‘NOC’ for construction of Custome....
12.Qua the charge that he had not obtained NOC from the Financier, the workman pointed out that he had brought this fact to the notice of the customer and the customer assured that he would produce a NOC from the Finance Company. ... Accordingly, on the production of NOC by the customer, it was acted upon. It was only at a later day that both the Management and the workman came to know that one Yagna Narayanan of M/s. Shree Ramachandra Care Transport had given a for....
Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that as per OERC tariff order, dated 23.03.2015, CGP will be treated as a long term customer, and accordingly, rate mentioned in the SLDC NOC of Rs 250/MWh is justified. ... Learned counsel for the Appellant has contended that the rate of Rs. 250/MWh mentioned in SLDC NOC is based on OERC Transmission Tariff Order, dated 23.03.2015, in which it is stated that CGP will be treated as Long Term customer. ... Umapathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No....
By considering this fact, the NOC was rightly not issued to the complainant. 5. ... This, however, is a lien upon the securities of the customer and not upon those of other persons, and the general lien of a banker does not attach even upon money or securities of the customer known to the bankers to be affected by a trust. ..." ... customer. ... The NOC was not issued to the complainant simply on the ground that he was guarantor in ....
It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita.
The banks do not keep record of what a customer is putting inside the locker. The customers are made responsible for the valuables he/she keeps in the locker. Therefore, there is no mechanism through which it can be known whether the goods kept in the locker have been removed from it or not. The public sector banks mandatorily require for every person to sign a contract clause which declares that the bank shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the contents of the locker caused in any manner whatsoever.
I do not want to take any action against the concerned Lawyer, who appears for the respondents, some of the judgments which deal with the conduct of the Lawyer in the court proceedings, the same not have been dealt with in detail. I am not sure what would have been the findings if all the facts were placed before the court since there may be a scope for either side to plead their case with regard to comparing the case of Mr. R.J. Patel with the present petitioners.
It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita." We declare that all such resolutions of Bar Association in India are null and void and the light minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want democracy and rule of law to be upheld in this country.
We declare that all such resolutions of Bar Associations in India are null and void and the right minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want democracy and rule of law to be upheld in this country. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
