MADHU JAIN vs Chairman, State Bank of India

THE husband of the complainant had taken loan for his factory from the OP-Bank. THE business activities of the husband of the complainant had closed in the year 2004-2005 and her husband had died on 7.12.2007. THE OP had filed a civil suit for recovery for the amount due against her husband on 27.10.2007. THE loan amount was paid on 20.6.2008 and "No Due Certificate" was issued by the OP on 11.7.2008. However, the civil suit was continued against her husband in spite of having paid the entire amount due and even legal heirs of her husband were not brought on record. THE complainant sought return of property documents after the payment of the amount due but, on one pretext or the other, the OP did not release the documents in spite of the complainant having executed Indemnity Bond as required by OP. According to the complainant, the suit was kept alive and the documents were not returned with the intention of grabbing the said property of the complainant. THE complainant had accordingly filed complaint-seeking compensation as also directions to return the property papers. An interim application has been filed for release of property documents.

THE OPs in their reply to the interim application have stated that the OP is ready and willing to deliver the title deeds to the legal heirs, in case this Hon''ble Commission is satisfied that the complainant is entitled to receive the same. According to the OP, the complainant had not complied with the formalities for return of the documents even though the loan amount had been paid and the documents were not returned. We have heard Counsel appearing on both sides.

Ld. Counsel for the complainant took up through various documents on record and urged that the OPs in their attempts to usurp the valuable immovable property have conspired to deprive the complainant of the property papers on account of which, the complainant could not sell the property and had suffered tremendous loss. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that since the complainant had not completed formalities for return of documents of the property, the same were not returned.

IN the complaint as also in the miscellaneous application, serious allegations have been levelled by the complainant against the OPs and panel advocates of the OPs which have denied by the OPs. The said aspect shall, however, be examined and decided at the time of taking final decision in the complaint and at this stage, it is not necessary to go into the said allegations. Suffice it to say that the complainant and the other legal heirs had in fact executed INdemnity bond and the same was filed with the OPs. On the execution of the INdemnity bond, the OPs in fact should have returned the property documents, but in spite of that property documents were not returned even though the entire liability had been paid off and no dues certificate had been issued by the OP. The complainant, in our opinion, is entitled to return all the property papers and as such, we direct the OPs to return all the property papers relating to No.34/1, Chhaparula INdustrial Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, UP, which were mortgaged pursuant to loans granted to M/s. L.P. Appliances within a period of 10 days from the receipt of this order failing which, OPs shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- per day till the documents are returned. The miscellaneous application is accordingly allowed in aforesaid terms. The matter may now be fixed for filing affidavit evidence on behalf of the complainant on 20.8.2010. A copy of this order may be sent to both the parties.