G. Maheswaran vs The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents not to threaten the petitioner or disturb the petitioner''s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the residential house in question.

It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he availed a mortgage loan from the respondent Bank by offering title deeds relating to his house property as collateral security for the loan. According to the petitioner, the monthly installment is Rs. 6,300/-, which includes the principle and interest and he states that he has been regularly paying the amount and as on today, he has paid Rs. 1,97,000/-, as against the loan amount, which was sanctioned viz., Rs. 5,40,000/-. The petitioner would stated that he is ready and willing to pay the loan amount without default. However, he is aggrieved by the action of the second respondent, who is an officer of the respondent Bank. The petitioner alleges that he has been tortured and threatened and Goondas have been sent to his house and there is a threat to lock the premises and forcibly evict him from the property in question. In this regard, a complaint, dated 08.07.2013, has been given by the petitioner to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karuppayurani Police Station, Madurai and a receipt has been given in C.S.R.No. 173 of 2014. According to the petitioner, though he has given a specific complaint against Mr. Kannan, the Officer of the Bank, till date no enquiry was conducted by the police and he has not been summoned to appear for any enquiry.

With the above facts, the petitioner seeks for the aforementioned relief.

There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the petitioner being a borrower, is bound to repay the loan as per the schedule of repayment. If the petitioner commits default, the respondent would initiate proceedings for recovery. However, such recovery proceedings shall be in accordance with the settled legal principles. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery Agents of Financial Institutions cannot take law into their own hands and adopt extra legal methods for recovery.

Thus, taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner and also pointing out that the petitioner is bound to repay the loan amount, which he has borrowed, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the first respondent Bank shall proceed to recover the loan amount from the petitioner as per the procedure established by law and in that process, the petitioner should not be threatened. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the respondents, the allegations made against the respondents are not considered and the matter stands disposed on the facts stated above. No costs.