HENA KAUSAR Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has challenged the bank's conduct in threatening to publish the petitioner's photographs in newspapers as a wilful defaulter. The petitioner says that the petitioner had requested for settlement of the bank's claim and had also put in some money upfront in support of such prayer, but the bank did not pay any heed and threatened to classify the petitioner as a wilful defaulter.

(2.) By an order dated March 19,2009 the bank was restrained from publishing the petitioner's photographs in newspapers or elsewhere as a wilful defaulter.

(3.) The petitioner seeks leave to use a supplementary affidavit as the petitioner says that a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has since been received by the petitioner. The leave sought has been declined since such notice would not fall within the scope of the writ petition. In any event, if the notice under section 13 (2) was taken on record, it would not have added to the merits of the petition.