RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O. JAGANNATH RAO Vs. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, CANARA BANK, MICO BRANCH, ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 030 AND M. GANGADHARA, S/O. M. MADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent -Bank wherein, entire salary of the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn and adjusted towards the loan account. It is the case of the petitioner that along with him, second respondent was also a co -borrower, however, no amount is sought to be deducted from his account. It is his case that he has been singled out to satisfy the loan amount.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to Annexure -D, notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the over dues and regularise the account immediately, otherwise, vehicle is likely to be seized. It appears that petitioner has not responded to the said notice but however, he is before this Court. I am of the view that the respondent -Bank ought to have stayed its hand until the petitioner replies to Annexure -D and the same has not been done. The deduction and adjustment of the amount from the salary account of the petitioner cannot be said to be in accordance with the Banking Regulations, notwithstanding the fact that an, undertaking is given by the petitioner that if the amount is not paid, the same shall be deducted from his salary account. Indeed, until the petitioner replies to Annexure -D and is considered by the respondent -Bank, the respondent -Bank shall not precipitate the matter and withdraw and transfer the amount from the salary account towards the loan account. The petitioner shall give reply to Annexure -D within a period of two weeks from today. On such reply being given, the respondent -Bank shall consider the Same having regard to the terms of the agreement and also the scope of Section 60 of CPC. Till the reply is considered, the respondent -Bank shall not deduct the amount from the salary account of the petitioner and adjust towards the loan amount.