Mrs. Madhu Jain vs State Bank Of India & Ors

A. P. Sahi, President Member

No one is present on behalf of the Complainant.

This Complaint was instituted in the year 2009 by the Complainant, who is the widow of late one Mr. M.K. Jain, who had been advanced a loan by the State Bank of India on hypothecation of the factory premises and the immovable property in relation thereto.  The borrower died and his widow (the present Complainant) negotiated and settled the dues of the Bank in the year 2008 itself under a one-time settlement scheme of the Bank.  After this settlement had been arrived at on 20.06.2008, the Complainant sought release of the title deeds of the property that had been hypothecated to the Bank.  The Complainant filed this Complaint on 15.06.2009 contending that the Bank was harassing the Complainant and therefore for such deficiency of service compensation should be awarded and the Bank should be directed to return all the property papers that were withheld by them.  Other ancillary reliefs were also claimed.

It appears that when the parties put in appearance the matter was heard by a Bench on 12.04.2010 and orders were pronounced on 29.04.2010, which is extracted hereunder:

“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 the civil suit for recovery of 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 of 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.”

In terms of the said directions, learned Counsel for the Bank informs the Bench that the title deeds have already been handed over to the Complainant.

It appears that the matter was kept pending for exchange of evidence as well as other pleadings that were completed but the Complainant or her Counsel stopped appearing after 2018 as is evident from the Order Sheet dated 09.04.2018 onwards.

It appears that due to the pandemic having set in, the Complaint could not be listed, Whereafter it was brought on board in 2022 and has been adjourned from time to time with no orders.  It is thus evident that once the title deeds that is stated to have been returned by the Bank to the Complainant, the Complainant nowhere appears to be interested in pursuing the matter.

Learned Counsel for the Bank is present.

In the above background, let this Complaint be consigned to record.