Punjab-Haryana High Court
Unknown vs Shri D.K.Singhal on 18 October, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P. No.11228 of 2011 -1-
Baljinder Singh v. M/s L&T Finance Ltd. and others.
Present:- Shri N.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri D.K.Singhal, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
Prima facie the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary considering the fact that the petitioner had made payment of the entire amount of loan except Rs.1,05,000/- when his vehicle was re-possessed by the respondents. The action of the respondents is strictly in conflict with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICICI Bank v. Shanti Devi Sharma and others 2008 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 463, wherein specific guidelines have been provided which are to be observed by the financial institutions. It has also been specifically observed that the financial institutions are bound by law and are expected to respect the guidelines contained in the said judgment. That apart, the judgment also notices the relevant guidelines formulated by the R.B.I. which are extracted here below :-
"3. Banks, as principals, are responsible for the actions of their agents. Hence, they should ensure that their agents engaged for recovery of their dues should strictly adhere to the above guidelines and instructions, including the BCSBI Code, while engaged in the process of recovery of dues.
4. Complaints received by Reserve Bank regarding violation of the above guidelines and adoption of abusive practices C.W.P. No.11228 of 2011 -2- followed by bank's recovery agents would be viewed seriously. Reserve Bank may consider imposing a ban on a bank from engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period. In case of persistent breach of above guidelines, Reserve Bank may consider extending the period of ban or the area of ban. Similar supervisory action could be attracted when the High Courts or the Supreme Court pass strictures or impose penalties against any bank or its Directors/Officers/agent with regard to policy, practice and procedure related to the recovery process."
This Court is inclined to refer the matter to the R.B.I. with a direction that this petition be treated as a complaint so as to contemplate necessary action against the respondents in this regard for having violated the law of the land. However, the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 when confronted with the situation, prays for some time to seek instructions as to whether the matter can be resolved amicably to the satisfaction of the petitioner.
List the matter for further proceedings on 8.11.2012.
(MAHESH GROVER)
October 18, 2012 JUDGE
GD