AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. MATHEW K. C

1.3 The pleadings in the writ petition are very bald and contain no statement that the grievances fell within any of the well defined exceptions. The allegation for violation of principles of natural justice is rhetorical, without any details and the prejudice caused thereby. It harps only on a desire for regularisation of the loan account, even while the Respondent acknowledges its own inability to service the loan account for reasons attributable to it alone. The writ petition was filed in undue haste immediately after disposal of objections under Section 13(3A). The legislative scheme, in order to expedite the recovery proceedings, does not envisage grievance redressal procedure at this stage, by virtue of the explanation added to Section 17 of the Act. [Para 7][239-B-C]

1.4 The Section 13(4) notice along with possession notice u/r.8 was issued. The remedy u/s.17 was now available to the respondent if aggrieved. These developments were not brought on record or placed before the Court when the interim order came to be passed. The writ petition was clearly not instituted bonafide, but patently to stall further action for recovery. There AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE v. MATHEW K. C. 235 is no pleading why the remedy available u/s. 17 before the Tribunal was not efficacious and the compelling reasons for by-passing the same. Unfortunately, the High Court also did not dwell upon the same or record any special reasons for grant of interim relief by direction to deposit. [Para 8][239-E-F]

1.5 It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed after noticing the relevant law. In financial matters grant of ex-parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. [Para 16][243-C-E]

1.6 The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference. The impugned orders are therefore contrary to the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and unsustainable. They are therefore, set aside. [Paras 17, 19][244-B-C, F]