T SESHU BABU Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A. P. Venugopal, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Smt. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari, learned counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) THE writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in retaining the title deeds pertaining to M/s. Asbestos and Cement concrete Products and M/s. Manoj Castings, Vijayawada, though the accounts have been closed, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently to direct the respondent to forthwith release all the title deeds given as security for the loan amounts availed by the above said firms.

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a partner of M/s. Asbestos and Cement Concrete Products and m/s. Manoj Castings, registered firms, and the Managing Partner of the firms was late Sri T. Hanumantha Rao. It is further stated that one adam Saheb was also a partner for M/s. Asbestos and Cement Concrete Products and that the said T. Hanumantha Rao and Adam Saheb expired leaving behind the petitioner as the surviving partner. It is also stated that there are other partners for M/s. Manoj Castings. Further, it is stated that the above said firms obtained working capital limits from the respondent bank by creating mortgage of the property belonging to the firms and that the petitioner, apart from being the partner of the firms, stood as guarantor for the repayment of loan amount by giving security/personal guarantee. It is further stated that when the rights of the petitioner as a partner of the said firms were being threatened, he filed a suit in O. S. No. 777 of 1992 on the file of the I additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada, for dissolution and rendition of accounts, and the same is pending disposal. It is also further stated that when the firms defaulted in payment of amounts and the accounts became irregular, the respondent bank filed O. S. No. 354 of 1994 on the file of the III additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada, against M/s. Asbestos and cement Concrete Products for recovery of Rs. 8,56,945/- and filed O. S. No. 366 of 1994 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vijayawada, against M/s. Manoj Castings for recovery of Rs. 2,92,460. 86 ps. and both the suits were decreed directing the defendants therein to pay the amounts as per the decree. It is also averred that the Managing Partner Sri T. Hanumantha Rao passed away on 26. 06. 1998 and Sri Adam Saheb also passed away on 06. 09. 1997 and subsequent to their demise, the partnership had never been reconstituted nor had separate partnership deeds been executed. It is also further stated that on the instructions issued by the R. B. I. , respondent bank had come forward with O. T. S. scheme and the petitioner was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 3,50,600/- and Rs. 4,84,800/- respectively for closure of both the accounts. It is also stated that letters were addressed to the petitioner only and the bank had not taken any steps to communicate the same to the other judgment Debtors. Further, it is stated that since none of the legal heirs of the deceased T. Hanumantha Rao and Adam Saheb had come forward to take advantage of the said O. T. S. scheme and as the deadline was fast approaching, the petitioner, left with no other alternative, reluctantly proceeded ahead in clearing out the amounts out of his personal funds by disposing of the immovable property belonging to him. It is also stated that the intention behind the clearance of the loan amounts was to safeguard the properties of the firms from being sold off in execution of the decrees. It is further stated that on the assurance given by the respondent bank that on clearance of the loan amounts, the documents pertaining to various properties which were kept as security would be handed over to the petitioner, the loan amounts were cleared off by the petitioner under the O. T. S. scheme on 29. 06. 2006. It is also further stated that though the amounts were paid in the month of June 2006, the final loan discharge certificates were not given till December 2006. Further, it is stated that though the amounts had been cleared way back in June 2006 and 'no due Certificates' had also been issued, the respondent bank, without any valid reason, high handedly retaining the title deeds pertaining to the various properties given as security and the petitioner, in this regard, addressed a letter, dated 07. 08. 2006, as well. It is also further stated that the respondent bank, having received the entire amounts from the petitioner in full and final settlement of the accounts, is duty bound to return the title deeds without insisting for a partnership deed, which is not in existence. It is further stated that the respondent had also not taken any steps for intimating the other partners before accepting the amounts on behalf of the firms and, hence, it is duty bound to return the title deeds to the petitioner. It is also further stated that the petitioner got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 15. 12. 2006 calling upon it to return the title deeds pertaining to the properties given as security, as it has no legal right to retain the same, and to that a reply notice, dated 05. 01. 2007, was given with all false and untenable pleas. In such circumstances, it is stated that the writ petitioner approached this Court for the reliefs specified supra.