Canara Bank v. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Heard Mr. Ankur Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material brought on the record.

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner namely Canara Bank, a Banking Company, duly incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Branch at Etah, Civil Lines, Branch, Etah, through its Chief Manager, has prayed for following principal reliefs:- "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 and 3 not to disturb the peaceful daily regular business of the petitioner unauthorizedly by vising the Branch and creating hurdles. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash the complaint submitted by the respondent No.4 to the SHO, Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah. "

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.5 namely, Sanjesh Yadav, s/o Shri Chetram Singh Yadav is a contractor and petitioner being Chief Manager of Canara Bank, Etah Branch, has sanctioned the loan amount to the respondent No.4. and his account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (in short N.P.A.) by the petitioner for the reason that respondent No.4 has failed to maintain the regular discipline of the Bank account. Later on, the petitioner has issued demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act, 2002) and further issued the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking physical possession over the property in question. The aforesaid state of affairs has prompted the respondent No.5 to challenge the aforesaid proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad in S.A. No.401 of 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that proceedings is still going on before the D.R.T., Allahabad and the interim relief has already been accorded in favour of the respondent No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop submits that respondent No.3 herein i.e. Kotwali City In- charge, District Etah, at the behest of the respondent No.4 who with a view to harass the petitioner had written a letter to SHO Kotwali Nagar, District Etah to register a complaint, is unnecessary creating hurdles in regular daily business of the and harassing the petitioner herein ignoring the fact that dispute itself is pending for consideration before the D.R.T. Allahabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner had written a letter to the S.S.P. concerned qua the frivolous complaint and the harassment of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 but no remedial measures has been adopted in favour of the petitioner till date.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. submits that as the complaint is there, respondent-Authority has every right to entertain the same but at the same time, he also assured that no such unnecessary harassment shall be ensured in the instant matter in case the petitioner cooperate in the complaint.

Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, as the informant has already invoked the forum which is available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and proceeding before the D.R.T., Allahabad, is is also stated to be pending consideration, we are of the considered opinion that there may not be any unnecessary harassment of the Bank Officials and the grievance of the petitioner must be redressed by the respondent No.4 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Etah, U.P. in accordance with law precisely taking note to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and others AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187.