STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD Vs. ANIL KUMAR SURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the action of the petitioner-Bank in seizing stock-in-trade, locking and sealing the business premises of the 1st respondent-contemnor was called in question by the latter in Writ Petition No.28081 of 1995. The authority of the petitioner - Bank to seize the stock-in-trade by virtue of the powers vested in it under Clause 7 of the Deed of Hypothecation was not disputed before the Court. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, infer alia, as follows:

(2.) The said order was challenged in appeal wherein it was brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent-Branch Manager of the bank had allowed his wife to interfere with the clients of the bank and the Court accordingly on 29-12-1995 in W.A.No.1738 of 95 ordered that a further probe had revealed that while functioning as an Officer of a statutory bank, the Branch Manager had allowed his wife to interfere with the clients of the bank and matter thus had assumed a question, whether there was any principle of malice in law or malice in fact attracted. The Court, on the said date, also ordered as follows:

(3.) When the matter came up for further hearing of the stay application, the Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties passed the following order on 22-1-1996: