F A CONSTRUCTION Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation of the Petitioner in this Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is that although it has redeemed the mortgage that was created over its property in favour of the Union Bank of India, the title documents deposited have not been returned.

(2.) On 14th September 2021, the matter was argued briefly before this Court. The Division Bench noticed the submissions by the Petitioner that the bank has no general lien over title deeds deposited with intent to create security thereon i.e. with intent to create a mortgage. It also noted that the Court had previously directed the Manager of Union Bank to remain present. The matter was then adjourned. Even on 14th September 2021, despite notice, none appeared, and hence, a show cause notice was issued to Mr Kaushik Das, the Chief Manager of Khar West branch of the Union Bank of India.

(3.) Mr Damle has prepared a short Affidavit in Reply to explain the absence of Mr Das. The Affidavit is taken on file. The Affidavit not only tenders an apology but also explains that Mr Das was in Varanasi. He was with the UBI at that time and he joined its Bandra (West) branch on 5th July 2021. Andhra Bank was merged with UBI. The original mortgage was with Andhra Bank and it was Andhra Bank which was repaid by the Petitioner. Mr Das was not familiar with the Andhra Bank account numbers and transactions. This is also his first posting to Mumbai. He had not settled in. He was yet in hotel accommodation. There were staff shortages and clerk in question was on leave. After that, he was looking at large value accounts. He says that there were intervening holidays, and staff was against absent thereafter. He accepts that all these are explanations but not excuses and once again tenders his apology.