While
allowing a Writ Petition filed by Mrs. A. Muthuiruvakkal of Nagercoil
in Kanyakumari district the Madras High Court Madurai Bench of Justice
K. Ravichandrabaabu held that a Savings Bank Account maintained
primarily for the purpose of depositing monthly pension amount could not
be attached by a bank just because the account holder had defaulted
repayment of a loan availed from them. The petitioner had challenged an
order passed by the State Bank of India on August 13 preventing her from
operating the pension account for recovering the outstanding loan
amount.
The counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran submitted
that the bank had deducted about Rs.14,681 from the petitioner’s pension
account after preventing her from operating the account. It was argued
on behalf of the petitioner that putting an S.B. account on hold by
passing such an order was impermissible in law as pension amount cannot
be attached or recovered for the purpose of recovery of any outstanding
amount payable by the petitioner. In support of such contention, the
petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Radhey
Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank and another wherein the Apex Court
had criticized the Rajasthan High Court for ordering attachment of even
Fixed Deposits without giving attention to the fact that the loan
defaulter in that case had actually converted his pension and gratuity
amount into fixed deposits. The bank on its part submitted that as there
is outstanding dues to the tune of Rs. 2,18,09,971/- and that they were
left with no other option except to pass the impugned order. After
hearing the rival submissions the court concurred with arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner and observed that “if there is any
outstanding due payable by the petitioner, it is for the respondent bank
to work out its remedy in the manner known to and permissible by law
before the appropriate forum. Without doing so, resorting to attach the
pension amount by way of passing the impugned order is impermissible.”
The judge set aside the bank’s order and directed it to permit the
petitioner to operate the account without any hindrance.
Read the order here.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.11.2015
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.(MD) No.l7838 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD).No.l of 2015
A.Muthuiruvakkal ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB),
No.8, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Vinayaganagar Branch (Upstairs),
Madurai-625 O20,
rep.by its Assistant General Manager
2.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India
Kariapatti Taluk,
Virudhungar District.
3.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Nagercoil Branch,
Nagercoil ... Respondents
Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus ix) call for tine records of the first
respondent impugned order dated 13.08.2015 and. quash the same insofar
as put on hold in SB A/c.No.113198l0470 for an amount CHE Rs.25 Iakhs on
account of recovery' of the dues to the bank and consequently direct
the second respondent to credit the amount of Rs. l4,68l/- if any in
future with interest which was already deducted in the SB Account of the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thirumahilmaran
For R.l : Mr.S.Sethuraman
For R.2 to 5 : No appearance
ORDER
The
petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated
13.08.2015 whereby, her Saving Bank Account No.11319810470 dealing only
in respect of her pension amount was put
on hold for the purpose of recovery of an outstanding of loan amount.
2.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials
placed before this Court.
3.
It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the present impugned order passed is in effect attaching
the pension amount of the petitioner lying in S.B.Account
No.11319810470 by putting such an account on hold, which is
impermissible in limb as pension amount cannot be attached or recovered
for the purpose of recovery of any outstanding amount payable by time
petitioner. In support of such contention, the learned Counsel relied on
a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC 376', Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and another.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents though. admitted. that time said. Saving' Bank .Account
which
was put on hold in the impugned order is in respect of the amount only
dealing with the pension of the petitioner, has however submitted that
as there is a outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.
2,18,09,97l/- as on 03.08.2015, the respondents bank has left ‘with no other option. except to pass the
present impugned order.
5.
The question now that arises for consideration before this Court is as
to whether the respondent bank is justified in attaching the pension
amount of the petitioner by passing the present impugned order for
realization of the outstanding dues, as claimed by the respondent bank.
6.
It is well settled that attachment of pension amount cannot be made for
realization of any outstanding. In this aspect, the above decision of
the Apex Court relied on by the learned Counsel
appearing
for the petitioner can be usefully quoted, wherein, in paragraph.
No.33, time Supreme Court has observed that the pension and gratuity
amount should not attached under the provision of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Paragraph No.33 reads as follows:-
“33.
However, we are also of the ‘view that having regard to proviso (g) to
Section 60(1) of the Code, the High Court committed a jurisdictional
error in directing that a portion. of time decretal amount; be satisfied
frmn the fixed deposit receipts of the appellant held fur the Bank. The
High. Court also erred in placing the onus on the appellant to produce
time Matador in question for being auctioned for recovery of the
decretal dues. In other words, the High Court erred in altering the
decree of the trial Court in it revisional jurisdiction, particularly,
when the pension and gratuity of the appellant, which had been converted
into fixed deposits, could not be attached. under the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The decision inJyothi Chit Fund case
has been considerably watered down by later decision which have been
indicated in para 22 hereinbefore and it ‘has been held that gratuity
payable would not be liable to attachment for satisfaction of a court
decree in view of proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code.”
7.
Therefore, if there is any outstanding due payable by the petitioner,
it is for the respondents bank to work out their remedy to recover the
said amount, in the manner known to and permissible by law, before the
appropriate forum. Without doing so, resorting' to attach time pension
amount by way of passing the impugned order is impermissible.
8.
Accordingly, this wait petition is allowed and time impugned order is
set aside. Consequently, the respondent bank is directed to permit the
petitioner to operate the said Saving Bank Account referred. to above,
without any hindrance. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
27.11.2015
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssm
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J
ssm
To
1.The State Bank of India,
Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB),
No.8, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Vinayaganagar Branch (Upstairs),
Madurai-625 020,
rep.by its Assistant General Manager
2.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India
Kariapatti Taluk,
Virudhungar District.
3.The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Nagercoil Branch,
Nagercoil.
W.P.(MD) NO.17838 of 2015
27.11.2015
December 19, 2015
Kalaivaraikalai
.bmp)
