Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.57 seconds)
Documents citing Mr.K.J.Doraisamy vs The Assistant General Manager on 22 November, 2006

M/S.Mohan Breweries And Distilleries ... vs The Authorized Officer on 27 April, 2018

In M/s. Revati Cements Private Limited Vs. Allahabad Bank, through its Head Office at 2, N.S.Road, Kolkata and branch office at New Palasia, Indore, W.A.No.549 of 2015, dated 4/12/2015, after considering K.G.Doraisamy's case and the dismissal of the challenge by the Hon'ble Apex Court, a Hon'ble Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore, held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Siddharth Agarwal & Ors vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 2 May, 2018

Mr. Pramanik Counsel for the respondent no. 1 bank refutes the contentions of the petitioner and relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported in 2016 SCC On Line Madras 32928 which had considered a similar case and had held that there is no violation of any right or legal provision in publishing photographs of borrowers and the surety for non repayment of the loan. Earlier judgements of the Hon'ble Madras High Court namely K.J. Doraiswamy Vs. The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India, were considered in the said judgment and a strong case made out in favour of the lender bank for resorting to appropriate measures to caution the public at large against the defaulting borrowers.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

M.Thiagarajan vs Industrial Development Bank Of India on 4 April, 2012

15.When a writ petition came to be filed preventing the nationalised bank from advertising the name of defaulters, this court vide judgment in K.J.Doraisamy Vs. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode and another reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 1877 = 2006 (5) CTC 829 had negatived the plea by stating that there is no right to privacy in such matters and if a person, who had availed loan, had committed default by adopting novel method, it is also open to the bank to device a new method to recover the said loan. In paragraph 31, this court had observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

G.Raman Alias Ramachandran vs The Superintendent Of Police on 17 September, 2012

13. Though in K.J.Doraisamy Vs. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Erode, reported in 2006(5) CTC 829, The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ramasubramanian has dealt with a case of display of photographs of defaulters of bank loans and the decisions considered by this Court on the aspect of infringement of right of privacy are worth reproduction:
Madras High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

G.Arasukumar vs State Bank Of India

53. Public Authority is defined under section 2 (h) of the Act to include any body owned, controlled or substantially financed. The respondent Bank is a public authority within the meaning of the Act and they owe a duty to disseminate information even suo moto. Hence they need not unnecessarily feel touchy about publication of matters involving some scams in the bank. When the Respondent SBI resorted to publication of photographs of the defaulters of dues to the bank, it was challenged by the defaulters and grounds of privacy was taken. One of us (V.R.S.J) rejected the objections and upheld the right of the bank to publish photographs of defaulters. It was considered that the defense of privacy was not available to the defaulters. It was pointed out in the said case K.J.Doraisamy v. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India [2006 (5) CTC 829], that:-
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

State Bank Of India & Ors vs Ujjal Kumar Das & Anr on 5 May, 2016

The above mentioned circular positively does not empower the Bank/financial institutions to publish photographs of borrowers/guarantors in newspapers though are entitled to provide information in the website of Credit Information Companies. One cannot close eyes to the other side of the problem. Such publication of photographs if borrower/guarantor does not come under the category of a person who is not an intentional/willful defaulter by committing certain acts of dishonest like siphoning of stocks hypothecated to Bank or siphoning of funds towards other purpose other than for which it was lent, may lead to disastrous, consequences by disturbing his mind leading to psychological problems because of stigma or taboo not only upon the borrower but also entire family for years to come. One has to balance the situation and act depending upon the factual situation. So far as above controversy several High Courts have given different opinions. The High Court of Madras in K.J. Doraiswamy Vs. The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India opined that interest of Bank requiring disclosure of information supersedes duty of secrecy because once a matter becomes public record and it becomes legitimate object of covenant and Right of privacy in terms of Article 21 is not an absolute Right or inviolable Right. It was further opined that Banks are entitled to invent novel methods to recover dues if borrower finds new method to avoid repayment of loans. This definitely indicates that under special circumstances where the borrower invents new methods to evade or avoid payment the Bank can also resort to new methods of recovery. Therefore, Madras High Court opined, there is no violation of any Right or legal proposition by publishing photographs of the borrower.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - J Bagchi - Full Document
1   2 Next