Delhi District Court
Prithvi Raj Mehta vs State Bank Of India And Ors on 20 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AAKASH SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE -02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 3010/2018
In the matter of: -
Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta
S/o Sh. Shanti Swaroop Mehta,
R/o 82, Sangam Apartments,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110087. .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. State Bank of India,
Chandni Chowk Branch,
Delhi-110006,
Through its Chief Manager/Manager. ....Defendant no.1
2. Stressed Assets Recovery Branch,
(State Bank of India)
At: 23, Najafgargh Road,
New Delhi-1100015,
Through its A.G.M. ....Defendant no.2
Date of Institution: 18.09.2018
Date of reserving the judgment: 21.12.2024
Date of Judgment: 20.02.2025.
Final Judgment: Suit Dismissed
CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 1 of 35
Digitally signed
AAKASH by AAKASH
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20
16:15:47 +0530
JUDGMENT
(Suit for Damages for Recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- due to loss of Interest, Mental Pain, Agony, Trauma and Other Financial Losses/Harassment for Arbitrary and Illegal Action)
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff, Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta against the defendant no.1 i.e. State Bank of India, Chandni Chowk Branch and defendant no.2 i.e. Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (State Bank of India) seeking money decree for Rs. 3,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 50,000/- towards the loss of interest and Rs. 2,50,000/- qua damages for mental pain, agony, trauma and other financial losses/harassment for arbitrary and illegal action with the cost of suit.
PLAINTIFF'S VERSION
2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was a borrower of the defendant no.1 bank and also a retired bank employee. That the plaintiff had availed personal loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 08.03.2014 from the defendant no.1 which was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly installments of Rs. 10,363/- per month and that has been repaid by the plaintiff before the agreed period i.e. in November 2016 instead of March 2017. That during the facility of personal loan, the defendant no.2 bank had put a withhold on the loan and only Rs. 1,10,000/- was used and the hold was put up on the pension account of the plaintiff in which the wife of the plaintiff was also a beneficiary being a family pensioner and not only this, the subsequent pension was also put on hold. That in all, a lien was created over the pension account to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- without any notice or CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 2 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:15:53 +0530 intimation to the plaintiff and it was the gross abuse of the powers by the defendants and is nothing but a practice to overreach the authority. The lien was created over the pension account which was providing subsistence to the retired employee and his wife. That the plaintiff had written various letters to the defendant no.1 bank. The defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff that the hold was put up by the Stressed Assets Recovery Branch i.e. defendant no.2 though the personal loan was given by the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 had given the loan after verifying everything. That moreover, the personal loan was taken by the plaintiff only and in pension account, the wife of the plaintiff was also the beneficiary and in these circumstances, the defendants should not have acted in unjustified manner. That moreover, in no case the pension account of the plaintiff was offered as a security for repayment of loan. Though the provident fund account of the plaintiff was held out as security for repayment of the education loan which he had availed.
2.1 It is further submitted that the defendant no.2 attached the pension account of the plaintiff as a security without any reason and authority to recover the education loan from pension account. That it is pertinent to mention here that a civil suit no.646/2012 was filed by the officials of State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch at 23, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110015, where all the NPA Accounts of the branches of State Bank of India situated in NCR Delhi/New Delhi were transferred and even in that suit also, the pension account was not offered as security in repayment of the education loan as the plaintiff was not CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 3 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:15:57 +0530 retired at that time and the pension account was opened in the year 2008. That both the branches are being run under the SBI Act, 1955 with Central Office of Nariman Point, Mumbai and the defendants had not shown any official communication or documents suggesting that the due process had been adopted in creating a lien over the pension account of the plaintiff between these two branches. That the banks/defendant no.1 had their self sufficient mechanism and precaution while allowing the application for grant of loan and before granting loan to the plaintiff, bank officials would complete all formalities before sanctioning any loan to the applicant/plaintiff. That if the defendant no.1 bank would have given the wrong loan to the plaintiff, then the defendant no.1 bank should have adopted the corrective procedure to prosecute and take action against the responsible officials who had granted the personal loan. That no such action had been taken by the defendant no.1 which means that the loan was as per laid down norms for personal loans and hence putting on hold the pension account of the plaintiff by defendant no.2, where the amount of the loan was credited was arbitrary, illegal and unlawful. That the plaintiff had moved an application under Order 39 Rule 7 & 10 r/w Section 151 CPC before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Sushant Changotra, Civil Judge, Delhi in civil suit no.646/2012 in the month of April, 2014 and the application was put up for 07.05.2014 and the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Ld. Civil Judge, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi had directed the Banker/defendant no.1 to de-attach the said pension account held jointly in the name of the plaintiff and his wife and the orders were passed by the Hon'ble Court on 19.09.2015 and the account was de-attached on CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 4 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:01 +0530 16.10.2015. That the Ld. Court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor had observed heavily on the behaviour and attitude of the defendants. That even the Hon'ble Court has observed that the action of the defendants is illegal and arbitrary and directed to the defendants to de-attach the said pension account held jointly in the name of the plaintiff and his wife. That though the pension account was attached and the plaintiff was not allowed to use the entire amount of the personal loan, inspite of that the installments of Rs. 10,363/- was deducted continuously. That the pension account was seized for the period of 19 months but the defendant no.1 had charged the compound interest over the personal loan to the extent of 14.75% per annum and in the pension account, the interest was paid to the extent of 5% per annum on half yearly basis. That the plaintiff had availed only Rs.
1,10,000/- initially which later on reduced to Rs. 1,08,000/- as the amount of Rs. 1,92,000/- was withhold by the defendant no.2 and if the plaintiff had availed the personal loan of Rs. 1,08,000/-, then plaintiff had to pay as a monthly installment Rs. 3,731/- instead of Rs. 10,363/-. That the plaintiff had to suffer the loss by way of monthly installments and plus interest to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and on which till the repayment of the amount the same set of interest which the defendant no.1 was charging on the personal loan, has to be repaid till the realization of the amount. That due to attachment of the pension account, the plaintiff had to suffer immensely and he has to suffer a mental trauma, agony and other losses as the plaintiff had availed the personal loan for his urgent personal requirements which he could not fulfill inspite of paying the regular installments of his personal loan account. That even during the pendency of the application under Order CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 5 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:05 +0530 39 Rule 7 & 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff wrote a letter dated 28.06.2014 to the Deputy General Manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi stating that pensionary benefits as well pension accounts cannot be attached by any authority and requested them to immediately clear the withheld funds and advise the plaintiff as to who will be responsible for the improper customer service and financial loss being caused to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff further mentioned that "you may if feel proper, recover the entire loan sanctioned to me and restore my full pension every month as I have been prevented from utilizing the borrowed funds for my needs." That the plaintiff again wrote a letter dated 23.07.2014 to the defendant stating that "you may also consider if you are justified, though late every month, in debiting my account with EMI of Rs. 10,363/- when you are willfully not permitting me to utilize the funds lent to me for my personal needs and especially when you cannot appropriate the balance in my account to any other loan account without my instructions and my instructions are being defied. I may inform you that my above referred joint pension account has no concern with SARB, Najafgarh Road." That the defendant no.1 had replied the letter dated 28.06.2014 and 23.07.2017 on 30.07.2014 stating that "officials of SBI SARB have advised having placed hold exercising the right to set-off" and further mentioned that "you take up the case with the SARB for removal of hold and arrange to furnish us a copy of No Dues Certificate of settlement of your dues with SARB."
2.2 It is further submitted that defendant no.2 had written a letter to the defendant no.1 whereby the sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- was put on hold as CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 6 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:16:09 +0530 a right to set off for the recovery of education loan in saving bank account of plaintiff where the pension was credited and the defendant no.2 had acted without any authority and in arbitrary and unlawful manner. That receiving the letter from the defendant no.1, the plaintiff had again written a letter to defendant no.1 dated 08.08.2014 stating therein that defendant no.1 is also not inclined to help and cooperate with the plaintiff and the defendants no.1 and 2 are acting against the pension loan scheme of the bank and the plaintiff had specifically written that he is a heart patient and will definitely go to Consumer Court for award of damages for causing irreparable loss to his life apart from pecuniary loss. Inspite of the warning and clearly giving the notice for recovery of the damages for the loss to the life and pecuniary loss, the defendants did nothing to remove the illegal hold. That the plaintiff had received the letter on 16.08.2014 from the defendant no.1, wherein the defendant no.1 had mentioned that you take up the matter directly with the defendant no.2 and submit the no dues certificate and further regarding the recovery of entire loan amount, the defendant no.1 has mentioned that the loan will be recovered as per EMI advised to you at the time of sanction of loan and the defendant no.1 further directed that you have to keep the sufficient clear balance on due dates in the account from where standing instruction for recovery of EMI has been issued. That the plaintiff again wrote a letter dated 17.08.2015 to the defendant no.1 stating that the 2 percent penal interest will be levied i.e. Rs. 570/- for delayed deposit every time. The plaintiff is receiving SMS despite the fact you are debiting my pension account with Rs. 10,363/-
every month on the day my pension is released by the bank and the plaintiff CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 7 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:16 +0530 had met the bank officials many time and written a complaint but no positive reply was given by them and even the plaintiff had contacted the customer care staff on telephone and again given the notice to the banker/defendant no.1 that you are responsible for the losses which the plaintiff is suffering and specifically given the notice that the defendant no.1 is representing SBI and cannot escape from the responsibility on the ground that the plaintiff has not been prevented by the defendant no.1 from utilizing the full personal loan granted to him and he has clearly given the notice to file a suit for substantial damages for causing continuing mental and financial harassment by the defendant no.1 and also by defendant no.2. Even then nothing was done by the defendants and the defendants kept on deducting the installments from the account and keeping the account on hold, even after passing the orders from the Hon'ble court and the orders were passed on 19.09.2015 and the account was de-attached on 16.10.2015 as the next date of hearing in the suit was 17.10.2015.
2.3 It is further submitted that the plaintiff had written a letter to Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, LHO, New Delhi but the defendant no.2 had replied that do not communicate directly with us and route your application through court only. That the plaintiff had written a letter dated 01.02.2018 to the defendant no.2 thereby stating that as your suit is dismissed in default, kindly make good immediately the financial loss caused to me due to your illegal labeling of hold in my pension account. That the plaintiff had written a letter dated 15.03.2018 to the Chief General manager, State Bank of India, reminder dated 01.05.2018 to the CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 8 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:20 +0530 letter dated 15.03.2018 letter dated 18.06.2018 to the Chief General Manager, SBI. That the plaintiff had also written a letter to the Chairman, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai dated 03.09.2018 for initiating a departmental enquiry and order for immediate payment of damages caused to the plaintiff. That the contents of the entire letters, replies, reminders are not elaborated for the sake of brevity as entire letters/replies whatever received are enclosed with the plaint for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. That lastly the plaintiff had written a letter dated 03.09.2018 to the Chairman but the reply was received from the defendant no.2 by e-mail only directing the plaintiff to represent through the court. That the plaintiff has issued notice by way of various letters, wherein he has demanded the damages and other pecuniary losses caused to him by the defendants. That the defendants had not replied the letters and whenever the defendants had given the reply, they have not challenged or denied the losses caused to the plaintiff by the arbitrary and unlawful acts of the defendants. That the cause of action to file the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants firstly when the pension account was attached where the loan amount was credited i.e. amounting Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,92,000/- was attached on 31.03.2014. That it further arose when the plaintiff had written various letters to all the authorities of the defendants. That it continued till the account was not de-attached i.e. on 16.10.2015. That the cause of action is still continuing as the losses and damages as demanded by the plaintiff have not been paid by the defendants. That this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit as the office of the CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 9 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:24 +0530 defendant no.1 is situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. That the personal loan was also taken by the plaintiff from the defendant no.1 from its abovesaid branch and the cause of action also arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. That the suit is valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 3,00,000/- upon which the court fees of Rs. 6,000/- has been paid. That the suit is within its limitation period. That the plaintiff is left with no other option except filing the present suit against the defendants. Hence, the present suit with the following reliefs: -
a) Pass a money decree in a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.
50,000/- towards the loss of interest and Rs. 2,50,000/- qua damages for mental pain, agony, trauma and other financial losses/harassment for arbitrary and illegal action, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally in the interest of justice;
b) Award the cost of the suit throughout in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
c) Any other further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
DEFENDANT'S VERSION
3. Summons of the suit for settlement of issues were issued and served upon the defendant no.1 on 30.11.2015 and defendant no.2 on 03.12.2018, in pursuance of which, the defendants filed their written statement. It is averred by the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is not CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 10 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:28 +0530 maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands and that the plaintiff has availed many loans from defendant no.1 branch from time to time.
3.1 It is further averred that on 01.12.2004 plaintiff along with his daughter had taken education loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from defendant no.1 and signed loan documents in favor of the bank but has failed to pay the outstanding dues of the defendant no.1 bank and his account became NPA, and thereafter file of that loan account was transferred to Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 23 Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. That thereafter SARB has filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,58,686/-
against the plaintiff and his daughter Ms. Astha Mehta (CS No. 646 of 2014) and same is pending in the court of Sh. Rajinder Singh, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court at Delhi and is fixed for evidence. That on 08.03.2014 plaintiff has taken a pension loan which is a type of personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (as plaintiff was a retired personnel and getting pension and loan was given against pension) from defendant no. 1 and signed loan documents in favor of the defendant no. l bank. That it is pertinent to mention that at the request of the plaintiff, the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was disbursed to pension account no. 30504365569 of plaintiff maintained at Chandni Chowk Branch of the State Bank of India. That defendant no. 2 has a right of set off and in view of that the hold was put by defendant no. 1 on the pension account of plaintiff after receiving letter dated 14.07.2014 from defendant no.2. That it is important to note that after the order dated CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 11 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:16:32 +0530 19.09.2015 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, the hold was removed by defendant no.1 from the said pension account of the plaintiff. That on 31.10.2017 plaintiff has taken pension loan of Rs.3,00,000/ from defendant no.1 and signed loan documents in favor of the defendant no. l bank and plaintiff is still liable to pay Rs.1,07,930/ to defendant no.l.
3.2 It is further submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and deserves dismissal, as plaintiff has concealed material facts from this Court. The plaintiff has filed a false case against defendants to cause wrongful loss to the defendants and wrongful gain to himself and hence present suit is liable to be dismissed with cost. That the present suit against defendants is liable to be dismissed as the same is filed with the sole purpose to harass the bank officials and to extort money from them and the suit is an abuse process of law. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed as Plaintiff had availed an education loan for Rs.1,20,000/- in December 2004 in the name of Ms. Astha Mehta and he was co-borrower in the same. However plaintiff has failed to repay the same. During the litigation process, when the suit for recovery was filed by the defendant bank no.2 bank against Sh. P.R Mehta, plaintiff herein. That defendant no. 2 has tried very hard to compromise the suit filed by defendant no. 2 in Education Loan with the plaintiff and given offer to pay the amount even below the suit amount through Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court but plaintiff refused to settle and was adamant. That the present suit CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 12 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:36 +0530 deserves dismissal because defendants are not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff what to say of Rs. 3 lakh for damages, loss of interest, mental pain, agony, trauma and other financial losses to the plaintiff as no alleged loss was caused to plaintiff as plaintiff was negligent himself which is clear from the fact that the said education loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- was taken by plaintiff as co-borrower with his daughter Astha Mehta in December 2004 when he was in service but he did not pay the same despite getting his retirement benefits on his retirement from the bank. That this shows the malafide intention of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has twisted the facts according to his convenience and to avoid his liability. That the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the same is vague, false, baseless and no sufficient cause of action is made out against the answering defendants and hence the same deserves to be dismissed. That the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no document with respect to the loan taken by the plaintiff has been filed by him. That the present suit is .not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as suit is not maintainable in its present form and same is abuse of process of law.
3.3 That the contents of para 1 are matter of record and need no reply except that it is denied plaintiff is a law abiding citizen. Plaintiff is a defaulter and did not pay the Education loan availed from defendant no. 1 in time and defendants were forced to file the suit for recovery against plaintiff for the same. That the contents of para 2 are admitted except what is denied hereinafter. That it is denied that the plaintiff paid the entire loan amount CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 13 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:16:41 +0530 in November, 2016. That in reply it is submitted that the plaintiff has closed the personal loan account on 01.12.2016 as per his wish to save further interest. That the defendants have not requested the plaintiff to pay the said loan before the agreed time mentioned in the loan documents. It is submitted that on 08.03.2014, plaintiff has taken a pension loan, which is a type of personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (as plaintiff was a retired personnel and getting pension and loan was given against pension) from defendant no.l and signed loan documents in favor of the defendant no. 1 bank. That it is pertinent to mention here that at the request of the plaintiff the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was disbursed to pension account no. 30504365569 of plaintiff, maintained at Chandni Chowk Branch of the State Bank of India. That defendant no. 2 has a right of set off and in view of that the hold was put by defendant no. l on the pension account of plaintiff after receiving letter dated 14.07.2014 from defendant no.2. That as per letter dated 14.07.2014 sent by defendant no.2 /SARB to defendant no.l, to whom the file of Education loan of plaintiff and his daughter was transferred after said Education loan account become NPA and loan account was migrated to defendant no. 2 and defendant no.2 bank had exercised the right of set off by putting an hold of Rs.1,92,000/- in saving bank account/pension account (which is same as pension is credited to the saving bank account of the plaintiff) of the Plaintiff. That the plaintiff was intimated by the defendant no. 1 about the hold. That it is denied that plaintiff had written various letters to defendant no.1 bank as stated. That in reply it is stated that on 08.03.2014 plaintiff CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 14 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:45 +0530 has taken a pension loan, which is a type of personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (as plaintiff was a retired personnel and getting pension and loan was given against pension) from defendant no.1 and signed loan documents in favor of the defendant no. 1 bank. It is pertinent to mention here that at the request of the plaintiff the loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/ was disbursed to pension account no. 30504365569 of plaintiff, maintained at Chandni Chowk Branch of the State Bank of India. It is denied that defendants have acted in unjustified manner. That no lien was marked on provident fund of the plaintiff towards the education loan.
3.4 It is further submitted that the bank exercised its right of set off as its lawful right. That a bank has a right to set off a debt owing to a customer against a debt due from him. Hence, it is wrongly submitted that the defendant bank without any authority and reason attached the pension account as security. It is denied that the defendant no. 2 attached the pension account of the Plaintiff as a security without any reason and authority to recover the education loan from the pension account. in reply it is stated that defendant no. 1 on the instructions of defendant no.2 has exercised its right of set off as its lawful right. That a bank has a right to set off a debt owing to a customer against a debt due from him. Hence it is wrongly submitted that the defendant bank without any authority and reason attached the pension account as security. Further, it is stated that even though the pension account was not offered as CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 15 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:49 +0530 security in repayment of the education loan with respect to the civil suit no. 646/2012, the defendant bank in order to cover a loan in default has a legal right to seize funds of the debtor. It is denied that the defendants had not shown any official communication of documents suggesting the due process had been adopted in creating a lien over the pension account of plaintiff between these two branches. In reply it is stated that the allegations of plaintiff are false and contrary to the documents filed along with the plaint. A letter dated 30.07.2014 had been sent by the SME Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi to the plaintiff in response to his letters dated 28.06.2014 & 23.07.2014 wherein plaintiff was requested to take up the matter with SARB for removal of hold after paying the overdue amount. That it is pertinent to mention herein that a letter dated 14.07.2014 addressed to the SME Chandni Chowk Branch by SARB has also been filed by the plaintiff wherein the process of creating lien/exercising right of set off has been communicated between the two branches. That in reply it is stated that SME Chandni Chowk Branch/defendant no.1 had rightly granted the loan to plaintiff as per his request. Loan was granted as per the guidelines of the Bank. That it is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff had concealed material facts from the defendant no.l bank pertaining to his previous pending dues with respect to the educational loan sanctioned to his daughter and himself as co- borrower. It is vehemently denied that the act of marking lien/set off over the personal loan of plaintiff was illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. That the allegations are false and denied.CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 16 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:16:53 +0530 3.5 It is further submitted that the counsel for defendant did not argue before the Court in that case that defendant bank has lawful right of set off and marking lien, hence same is not reflected in the said and court has directed the bank/defendant no. l to de-
attach the said pension account vide order dated 19.09.2015 and the said order was complied with by the bank. It is important to note here that right of general lien of banker is statutorily recognized in Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The banker's lien apart from any specific security, the banker can look to his general lien as protection against loss on loan or overdraft or other credit facility. The general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and judicially recognized as such. That in reply it is stated that defendant no.l had sanctioned a personal loan for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ with respect to which he signed and executed various loan documents and had undertaken to repay the loan in 36 EMI of Rs.10,363/-. The attachment was with respect to the educational loan hence he could not deny his liability towards the repayment of the pension loan. Therefore the same was deducted continuously as per the instructions given by the plaintiff at the time of documentation. In reply it is submitted that the defendant bank has charged interest as per prevailing rate of interest agreed by plaintiff at the time of signing of loan documents subject to change from time to time. It is denied that the plaintiff had availed only Rs. l,10,000/- initially which later on reduced to Rs.1,08,000/- as the amount of Rs.1,92,000/- was CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 17 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:16:57 +0530 withhold by the defendant no. 2. In reply it is stated that the defendant no. 1 bank had disbursed full sum of Rs. 3,00,000 on 08.03.2014 as was agreed. That since the plaintiff had availed complete loan amount, he cannot deny his liability to repay monthly installment of Rs.10,363/- towards repayment of pension loan. The amount of Rs.1,92,000/- which was withhold by the bank was the lawful right of the bank to recover its dues towards the education loan. It is denied that plaintiff had suffered loss of Rs.50,000/- as alleged. It is further denied that plaintiff had to suffer mental trauma, agony and other losses as alleged.
3.6 It is further submitted that the charge created over the pension account was the right of the bank to recover its due since plaintiff had defaulted in making repayments of the education loan. That a bank has a right to set off a debt owing to a customer against a debt due from him. Hence banks right to impose lien was lawful. That the defendant no.1 bank has throughout responded to the letters of the plaintiff with respect to his queries. Despite said letters the plaintiff did not settle the education loan account with the SARB despite compromise offer of less than suit amount that was given by defendant no. 2 bank and plaintiff has been adamant throughout. That it is vehemently denied that defendant no.2 acted without any authority and in arbitrary and unlawful manner. It is an admitted fact that after receiving the letter from defendant no.1, the plaintiff had again written a letter to defendant no.1 dated 08.08.2014.
CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 18 of 35 Digitally signed byAAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:17:02 +0530 However, it is denied that the defendant no.1 was acting against the pension loan scheme. In reply it is again submitted that the defendant no.1 bank had sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount as per the pension loan scheme. It is further denied that the plaintiff is a heart patient and is suffering any irreparable loss/injury due to this hold. The plaintiff has cooked up a concocted story with the sole intent to harass the bank and unlawfully extort money from it. It is denied that the hold was illegal. The defendant bank has an authorized legal right to impose lien as per guidelines to recover debts/dues. That the plaintiff did not pay the dues of defendant bank despite receipt of letter dated 16.08.2014 and did not settle the education loan with the defendant no.2 bank and did not submit the no dues certificate with defendant no.1 bank which shows malafide intention of the plaintiff. That plaintiff is to pay EMI for pension loan. It is submitted that plaintiff used to receive SMS as a friendly reminder to the borrower to be regular towards payment. No penal interest was levied. It is pertinent to mention here that the installments were deducted as agreed by the plaintiff during signing of loan documents. The allegations are false and denied. It is further submitted that the bank has not sent any reply directing the plaintiff to communicate the bank through court. No proof has been filed by the plaintiff in this regard. The allegations are false and denied. It is denied that defendants are liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged. The order dated 19.09.2015 directed the defendants to only remove the lien and the same had been complied with. The bonafide intention of the answering defendants cannot be ignored. It is CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 19 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH SHARMA AAKASH Date:
SHARMA 2025.02.20 16:17:06 +0530 denied that the defendants did not reply to the letters. It is denied that the act of the defendants was unlawful and arbitrary. The allegations are false and denied. It is stated that the bank exercised its statutory right to set off. It is denied that the cause of action firstly arose when the answering defendants attached the pension account. It is submitted that bank marked lien as it has legal• right to recover its dues pertaining to the education loan because the plaintiff defaulted in repayment as per agreed terms and conditions. That no sufficient cause of action is made out against both the answering defendants. The present suit is liable to be dismissed based on false, frivolous and misleading facts. It is denied that suit is within limitation. It is prayed that the suit of the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with heavy cost.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.09.2019.
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
5. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as witness. Plaintiff stepped into witness box as PW-1. He relied upon the following documents: -
1. Ex. PW1/1 is the certified copy of the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Ld. Civil Judge-06, West, THC, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 646/2012 titled as State Bank of CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 20 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:17:11 +0530 India Vs. Ms. Astha Mehta & Anr.
2. Ex.PW1/2 is the photocopy of letter dated 28.06.2014 sent by the deponent to the Dy. General manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
3. Ex.PW1/3 is the photocopy of the letter dated 23.07.2014 sent by the deponent to the Dy. General manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
4. Ex.PW1/4 is the photocopy of the letter dated 08.08.2014 sent by the deponent to the Dy. General manager, SBI, SME, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
5. Ex.PW1/5 is the photocopy of the letter dated 17.08.2015 sent by the deponent to the Dy. General Manager, SBI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
6. Ex.PW1/6 (Colly.) is the photocopy of the letter/reply dated 30.07.2014 sent by the deponent to the Dy. General manager, SBI, SME, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
7. Ex.PW1/7 is deleted being a part of Ex.PW1/6.
8. Ex.PW1/8 is the photocopy of the letter dated 16.08.2014 sent by the Dy. General Manager, SBI, SME, Chandni Chowk, Delhi to the deponent.
9. Ex.PW1/9 is the photocopy of the letter dated 01.02.2018 sent by the deponent to the Asstt. General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015.
10. Ex.PW1/10 is the photocopy of the letter dated 15.03.2018 sent by the deponent to the Chief General Mnager, SBI, Local CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 21 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:17:34 +0530 Head Office, Parliament Street, Delhi-110001.
11. Ex.PW1/11 is the photocopy of the letter dated 01.05.2018 sent by the deponent to the Chief General Mnager, SBI, Local Head Office, Parliament Street, Delhi-110001.
12. Ex.PW1/12 is the photocopy of the letter dated 18.06.2018 sent by the deponent to the Chief General Mnager, SBI, Local Head Office, Parliament Street, Delhi-110001.
13. Ex.PW1/13 is the photocopy of the letter dated 03.09.2018 sent by the deponent to the Chairman, SBI, State Bank Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai which is now de-exhibited and marked as Mark 'B'.
14. Ex.PW1/14 is the photocopy of the letter dated 03.10.2015 sent by the deponent to the Asstt. General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015.
15. Ex.PW1/15 is the photocopy of the letter dated 19.07.2017 issued by the Asstt. General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015.
16. Ex.PW1/16 is the print out of e-mail dated 10.09.2019 sent by the bank to the deponent.
17. Ex.PW1/17 is the photocopy of the letter dated 11.09.2018 issued by the Asstt. General Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Najafgarh Road, Delhi-110015.
18. Ex.PW1/18 is the photocopy of the sanction letter dated 08.03.2014 issued by SBI, Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi to the deponent and Ms. Nirmal Mehta.CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 22 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:00 +0530
19. Ex.PW1/19 (Colly.) is the statement of bank account of w.e.f.
31.10.2017 to 18.09.2019.
20. Ex.PW1/20 and Ex.PW1/21 are the dishonoured cheque bearing No. 928303 dated 15.04.2014 alongwith its return memo.
21. Ex.PW1/22 (Colly.) is the statement of bank account w.e.f.
08.03.2014 to 18.09.2018.
22. Ex.PW1/23 (Colly.) is the statement of bank account w.e.f.
01.04.2014 to 31.12.2015.
23. Ex.PW1/24 (Colly.) is the statement of bank account w.e.f.
26.08.2015 to 31.12.2015.
24. Ex.PW1/25 is deleted being already exhibited as Ex.PW1/15.
25. Ex.PW1/26 (Colly.) are the medical bills, invoices, prescriptions and treatment documents.
26. Ex.PW1/27 is the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
All the documents which have been exhibited had been seen in original and returned to the deponent.
PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for both the defendants. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 06.11.2023.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
6. On the other hand, the defendants examined Ms. Meenu Asani, Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-I, 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi as DW-1 by tendering affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A. DW-1 relied upon following documents:-
CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 23 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASHAAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:04 +0530
i) Ex.PW1/D-1 is the copy of the letter dated 14.07.2014 sent by defendant No. 2 to defendant No.1 under signature of Sh. Hitesh Kajla, the then Chief Manager of defendant No. 2 bank, which is already exhibited in the evidence of PW-1.
ii) Ex.DW1/1 is the letter dated 30.07.2014 sent by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff.
DW-1 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
6.1 Defendants also examined Sh. Shambhu Karan Shandilya, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SCAB, Janakpuri West, New Delhi as DW-2. DW-2 relied upon following documents:-
i) Ex.DW2/1 is the copy of his Identity Card (OSR).
ii) Ex.PW1/D-1 is the copy of the letter dated 14.07.2014, which has already been exhibited in the cross-
examination of PW-1 Sh.Prithvi Raj Mehta.
iii) Ex.DW1/1 is the copy of the letter dated 30.07.2014 which has already been exhibited in the evidence of DW-1 Ms. Meenu Asani, hence, Ex.DW2/2 is de-
exhibited.
iv) Ex.DW2/3 is the copy of the letter dated 19.07.2017 sent by defendant No. 2 bank to the plaintiff, which is now de-exhibited and marked as Mark 'A'.CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 24 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:09 +0530 FINDINGS
7. The findings are as under: -
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.
3,00,000/-, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Relief.
8. The burden of proving the issue framed in the present suit was on plaintiff. The present suit is a suit for damages for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/- due to loss of interest, mental pain, agony, trauma and other financial losses/harassment for arbitrary and illegal action of the defendants which affected the plaintiff. The plaintiff has firstly relied upon Ex.PW1/1 which is the certified copy of the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, Ld. Civil Judge-06, West, THC, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 646/2012 titled as State Bank of India Vs. Ms. Astha Mehta & Anr., wherein the Ld. Court observed that the action of the defendants herein i.e. plaintiff therein in attaching the pension account bearing no.30504365569, SBI Chandni Chowk was illegal and arbitrary and the defendants herein i.e. plaintiff therein were directed to de-attach the said pension account held jointly in the name of the plaintiff herein and his wife till further orders of the court. During course of cross-examination of the plaintiff on 06.03.2023 as PW-1, plaintiff admitted that the suit filed by the defendant bank for recovery of Rs. 1,58,686/- against the plaintiff and his daughter had been decreed. Plaintiff also admitted that an educational loan was taken by the plaintiff and his daughter for pursuing the course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy. It is significant to note that plaintiff had also admitted in his CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 25 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:18:13 +0530 cross-examination as PW-1 on 11.11.2021 that plaintiff and his daughter did not pay the said education loan within time. However, plaintiff stated that he had no knowledge if the said education loan account became NPA and if defendant no.1 had transferred the said education loan to defendant no.2 after the loan account became NPA. This barefaced denial of the plaintiff is hard to fathom as plaintiff is himself a retired bank employee who is well aware of the workings of bank and is drawing pension from defendant no.1. The grouse of the plaintiff is that the pension account no.30504365569 which was maintained by the plaintiff and in which the wife of the plaintiff was also a beneficiary was put on hold and a lien was created upon the pension account to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- without any notice or intimation to the plaintiff.
9. Now it has to be considered whether the defendants by their act of putting on hold the pension account of the plaintiff wherein his wife was also a beneficiary by creating a lien upon the pension account to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/- committed any illegal act entitling the plaintiff to recover damages. The defence of the defendants is that defendant no.1 bank had exercised the right of set off by putting an hold of Rs. 1,92,000/- in saving bank account/pension account as pension was credited to the saving bank account of the plaintiff after receiving letter dated 14.07.2014 from defendant no.1 i.e. Ex.PW1/D-1 which is the copy of the letter dated 14.07.2014 sent by defendant No. 2 to defendant No.1 under signature of Sh. Hitesh Kajla, the then Chief Manager of defendant No. 2 bank. Contents of this letter Ex.PW1/D-1 are not reproduced here for the sake of CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 26 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:17 +0530 brevity, however, the same disclose that hold of Rs. 1,92,000/- was put in the savings bank account of the plaintiff since plaintiff, a retired bank officer had taken an education loan for Rs. 1,20,000/- in December 2004 in the name of Ms. Aastha Mehta (daughter of the plaintiff) and at the time of sanctioning of loan, the plaintiff was in service but did not repay the loan in time and the account became NPA and thereafter civil suit was filed against the borrower Ms. Aastha Mehta and co-borrower i.e. plaintiff but the plaintiff did not repay the loan and thereafter it came to the knowledge of defendant no.2 that plaintiff had again taken a pension loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in March 2014 after concealing the facts and by exercising the right of set off an hold of Rs. 1,92,000/- was put in the savings bank account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff during cross-examination outrightly remarked to the suggestion that the defendants had a right to mark lien on the pension account of the plaintiff in case of default of pension loan that "no authority was empowered to touch my pension account". During cross- examination on 04.08.2023, the plaintiff as PW-1 admitted that plaintiff retired on 31.12.2008 from State Bank of India as Assistant Manager. That the plaintiff got the retirement benefits i.e. Rs. 12,00,000/-. Plaintiff admitted that at the time of retirement, the education loan was operational. Plaintiff admitted that he did not pay any amount towards the education loan from the retirement benefits. Plaintiff admitted that the education loan was in the joint name of plaintiff and his daughter. Pertinently, the Ld. Counsel for the defendants categorically put to the plaintiff in his cross- examination that the plaintiff despite having sufficient means did not pay the education loan due to malafide intention, to which the plaintiff replied CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 27 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:18:22 +0530 that there was no malafide intention and that it was the duty of the defendants to contact the plaintiff atleast once a year for repayment of the education loan and that the plaintiff never received any call from bank in this regard. Plaintiff became evasive during cross-examination. Plaintiff stated that he did not know that the loan documents had stipulated that plaintiff had to repay the education loan on regular basis on monthly EMIs. Plaintiff admitted that the education loan is a term loan and a person who takes the term loan has to pay regular EMIs. Strikingly, plaintiff also admitted that the education loan account had been declared NPA but voluntarily added that plaintiff came to know about the same only when he received the summons from the court in the suit filed against the plaintiff and his daughter and stated that plaintiff never received any notice NPA from the bank. The defendants have relied upon Ex.PW1/D-2 i.e. photocopies of application-cum-authority dated 31.10.2017, Arrangement Letter dated 31.10.2017, Demand Promissory Note dated 31.10.2017, DP Note-cum Delivery Letter dated 31.10.2017, Guarantor's Declaration Form dated 31.10.2017 and the letter given by the plaintiff to the bank for deducting the EMIs dated 31.10.2017 and KYC documents of the plaintiff as well as his wife wherein it is stated that in the event of any default, the bank is authorized to adjust and set off entire amount or amount of defaults with interest as deemed fit by the bank from any of the accounts maintained with the bank by the borrower or co-borrower. In the opinion of the court, Section 171 of the Contract Act gives a general lien to the bank over all forms of deposits or securities made by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. Perusal of Ex.PW1/23 (Colly.) reveals CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 28 of 35 Digitally signed AAKASH by AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:18:26 +0530 that same is the statement of bank account bearing No. 30504365569 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2015 which is a savings bank account of the plaintiff and his wife. It is pertinent to mention that the wife of the plaintiff has not filed the present suit or joined the suit as co-plaintiff. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta alone. The amounts debited in the account no.30504365569 were credited into the loan account no.33710854156 as per Ex.PW1/22 (Colly.) which is the statement of bank account w.e.f. 08.03.2014 to 18.09.2018. It is a settled principle of law that plaintiff must come to the court with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed but the plaintiff in the present case has concealed the fact that on 01.12.2004, the plaintiff alongwith his daughter has taken education loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- and that he and his daughter failed to pay the outstanding dues of the defendant no.1 bank. The plaintiff even tried to conceal on 11.11.2021 that he did not know that the said education loan account became NPA even though plaintiff was well aware that defendant no.2 had filed recovery suit against the plaintiff and his daughter regarding the same education loan which became NPA. During cross-examination on 06.03.2023, it was also observed by the court regarding the demeanor of the plaintiff that, "at this stage, the witness is speaking out of turn and stating that the opposite counsel is trying to confuse me as well as the court, as she is twisting the facts. The witness further states that the opposite counsel is asking irrelevant questions. He further states that the opposite counsel is irritating him". On 06.03.2023, plaintiff was being cross-examined after the suit for recovery filed by the defendant bank for recovery of Rs. 1,58,686/- had been decreed against the plaintiff and his CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 29 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:34 +0530 daughter and the Ld. Counsel for the defendants was questioning the plaintiff regarding the whereabouts of the daughter of the plaintiff and regarding her employment and present position in life. Rather than repaying the education loan amount on the first instance upon coming to know about the same being NPA after summons from the court were received by the plaintiff, the plaintiff kept maintaining that lien could not be marked on the pension account of the plaintiff where his wife was also a beneficiary.
10. But during cross-examination on 04.08.2023, plaintiff did a complete volte face from his previous statement recorded on 11.11.2021 and admitted that plaintiff knew that the education loan account had been declared NPA. Strangely, the plaintiff gave an evasive answer to the question whether the bank has the right to set off the loan amount from another account of loanee stating that he could not say so and maintaining that appropriation of account cannot be done without the consent of the account holder. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Lagnajita Chatterjee vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2017 that:-
"Section 171 of the Contract Act, 1872 recognises bankers lien. Section 171 of the Act of 1872 is as follows :"S. 171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy-brokers.- Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 30 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:38 +0530 other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect."A banker is entitled to exercise its bankers lien over properties which comes to its possession in the usual course of business, of its constituent who is in default to it. In a joint savings bank account, with instructions of either or survivor basis, any of the two account holders is allowed to operate the same. Anyone of the two joint account holder is recognised by the joint account holders to have complete right to deal with the entire amount in the account without any further from the other account holder. A savings bank account with either or survivor clause for its operation, is considered to be the property of anyone of the joint account holder. It is on such basis that the entirety of the amount lying such account of the joint account holder is allowed to be transacted by one anyone of them. The joint account holders authorise the bank to do so when they issue the instruction to the bank, to allow the operation of the account on either or survivor basis. In such a scenario it is not open to anyone of the joint account holders to complain, at the time of exercise of bankers lien, or thereafter, that the amount lying to the credit of a joint savings bank account cannot be treated to be the property of one of the account holders for the purpose of exercise of bankers lien. The contention of the petitioner, if accepted, will create a non-existent dichotomy. Such contention, if accepted, will mean that, a bank will treat the amount lying credit of a savings bank account to be the property of anyone of the joint account holders for all purposes of its operation, but would not be able to treat it to be so when comes to exercise of its bankers lien recognised under section 171 of the Act of 1872. Such a position cannot be accepted."CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 31 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH
AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:42 +0530 Relying on this judgment, the plaintiff's argument that because his wife was also a beneficiary in the joint savings bank account, the General Banker's Lien could not be exercised in this account is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Needless to add, the wife of the plaintiff has not approached this court seeking any relief for this act of the defendants but it is the plaintiff alone who has an axe to grind to settle his own personal score with the defendants. Plaintiff cannot complain of having suffered any mental agony for his own wrongs i.e. non-repayment of the education loan availed as co-borrower with his daughter.
11. DW-1 Ms. Meenu Asani, Manager, State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-I, 23, First Floor, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi testified on behalf of the defendant no.2 and deposed that the bank had the right to set off and the plaintiff had twisted the facts according to his convenience and to avoid his liability. That plaintiff had availed many loans from defendant no.1 from time to time i.e. loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-
taken on 01.12.2004 by plaintiff alongwith his daughter as education loan; loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- taken on 08.03.2014 as pension loan by plaintiff and loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- taken on 31.10.2017 as pension loan by plaintiff. That plaintiff had concealed material facts from the court and filed a false case against the defendants. That as on date i.e. 12.03.2019, the plaintiff is still liable to pay Rs. 1,07,930/- to the defendant no.1. That the plaintiff was negligent himself and malafidely did not repay the education loan taken by plaintiff as co-borrower with his daughter. That even though the pension account was not offered as security in repayment of the education CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 32 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:47 +0530 loan with respect to the civil suit no.646/2012 but the defendant bank in order to cover a loan in default has a legal right to seize funds of the debtor. Nothing material could be elicited during cross-examination of DW-1 as to causation of any wrong to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants, when the plaintiff was himself in the wrong having not repaid the previous educational loan taken by his daughter with plaintiff as co-borrower.
12. DW-2 Sh. Shambhu Karan Shandilya, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SCAB, Janakpuri West, New Delhi also deposed on behalf of the defendant no.1 and stated that a letter dated 30.07.2014 had been sent by the SME Chandni Chowk Branch, Delhi/defendant no.1 to the plaintiff in response to his letters dated 28.06.2014 and 23.07.2014 wherein plaintiff was requested to take up the matter with SARB/defendant no.2 for removal of hold after paying the overdue amount in the education loan account availed by plaintiff as a co-borrower with his daughter Ms. Aastha Mehta as borrower. This letter dated 30.07.2014 in response to the letters of plaintiff dated 28.01.2014 and 23.07.2014 was already filed by the plaintiff on record at page no.36 in his evidence which bears Ex.PW1/6(OSR) (Colly) and same was also relied as Ex.DW1/1 in the testimony of DW-1 Ms. Meenu Asani. DW-2 further deposed in his evidence affidavit that plaintiff had concealed material facts from defendant no.1 bank pertaining to his previous pending dues with respect to the education loan sanctioned and taken by his daughter Ms. Aastha Mehta and plaintiff as co-borrower.
DW-2 also further deposed that defendants are not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff what to say of Rs. 3,00,000/- for damages, loss of interest, CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 33 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:18:52 +0530 mental pain, agony, trauma and other financial losses to the plaintiff as no alleged loss was caused to plaintiff as plaintiff was negligent himself which is clear from the fact that the said education loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- taken by plaintiff as co-borrower with his daughter in December 2004 when he was in service but plaintiff did not pay the same despite getting his retirement benefits on his retirement in 2008 from the bank which shows the malafide intention of the plaintiff as the plaintiff has twisted the facts according to his convenience and to avoid his liability. DW-2 further affirmed the right of the bank to set off.
13. During cross-examination of DW-2, the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff put questions regarding the hold of Rs. 1,92,000/- which was put in the joint pension account of the plaintiff and his wife. DW-2 however affirmed the right of the bank to set off. DW-2 fairly admitted that a cheque of Rs. 2,000/- was dishonoured on 15.04.2014 pertaining to the plaintiff due to the hold in the account of the plaintiff. However, in the opinion of the court as already discussed above that the banker has the right to set off and mark lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act even upon a joint savings account to realize its debts, it cannot be said plaintiff suffered any financial loss or mental pain, agony, trauma or harassment due to the action of the defendants in marking of lien. Rather, it was the plaintiff's own negligence and default in repaying the educational loan availed by his daughter with plaintiff as co-borrower which occasioned the defendants to undertake creation of a lien and putting on hold the withdrawals from the bank account of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not come to the court with CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 34 of 35 Digitally signed by AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.02.20 16:18:56 +0530 clean hands and has concealed material facts that on 01.12.2004, the plaintiff alongwith his daughter had taken education loan of Rs. 1,20,000/-
and that plaintiff and his daughter failed to pay the outstanding dues of the defendant no.1 bank which occasioned the bank to realize its debt from the joint savings account of the plaintiff and his wife by putting withdrawals on hold and marking lien on the account. The defendant bank was within its right to do so as per the General Banker's Lien enshrined in Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act.
RELIEF
14. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed by File be consigned to Record Room as per rules. AAKASH AAKASH SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.02.20 16:19:43 +0530 Announced in the open (Aakash Sharma) court today on 20.02.2025 Civil Judge -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.CS No. 3010/2018 Sh. Prithvi Raj Mehta Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Page 35 of 35