Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Archana Chauhan vs State Bank Of India on 7 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 MADHYA PRADESH 45, 2007 (2) ALL LJ NOC 252
ORDER Arun Misha, J.
1. Shri Riyaz Mohammad for petitioner.
Petitioner is assailing publication of the Photograph (P-3) by the Stale Bank of India, by which photographs of borrowers have been published, who art the defaulters. They have been required to make payment of the amount due to the Bank as per publication (P-3). Further prayer made by the petitioner is that impugned demand notices (P-1) and (P-2) which have been issued be quashed and facility of making payment in installments be ordered. The action has been initiated under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2002) and the rules framed, thereafter, an amount of Rs. 4,98,03687/- along with the interest is due to be paid. Notice (P-1) was issued on 13-11 -2004, now notice for sale or purchase of property has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 13(2) read with Section 9 of the Act of 2002. Petitioner is having alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, hence with respect to the notices no case for interference is made out. Petitioner if so advised, may avail the alternative remedy which is available.
2. With respect to the photographs, in the opinion of this Court publication of phonographs of the borrowers cannot be said to be impermissible mode, Action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. It cannot be said to be defamatory publication made, hence I find no ground to quash the publication (P-3).
3. Writ petition is dismissed.