MEHAR CHAND GOYAL Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case where respondent No. 1/Canara Bank having given an assurance to release a mortgaged property on payment of specified amount seeks to back out of the assurance after the amount has been deposited and appropriated by the bank. Such act is not expected at least from a nationalized bank.

(2.) THE petitioner was a promoter cum Director of M/s. Nova Lamiboards Pvt. Ltd. Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of manufacturing of laminated boards at Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh. In order to secure the loan, four properties were mortgaged and one such property was residential house of the petitioner bearing # 3175, Sector 32 -D, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the mortgaged property').

(3.) THE petitioner subsequently issued a letter dated 30.03.2012 requesting for release of title deeds of the property as he claimed to have deposited a sum of Rs. 2.25 Crores. The secondary prayer made in that letter was to renew the credit limit w.e.f. 31.03.2012 as all the accounts of the company had also been regularized. In response to this letter, respondent No. 1 bank issued a letter dated 31.05.2012 which is comprehensive qua both the aspects. However, while referring the issue of release of the mortgaged property, a new rider was sought to be added that it would be permitted to be released after regularization of the account, vide orders of the General Manager dated 09.02.2012. This was despite the fact that the communication dated 16.2.2012 did not contain any such stipulation which had naturally been issued after 09.02.2012.