Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Given the above narration of facts, we are satisfied that the action of the Bank touted as a “mistake”, was not a genuine mistake but was a deliberate act which they have stood by even after they were put to notice that they had illegally attached the petitioner’s property. The respondents did not withdraw the attachment even when the petitioner filed objection on 14th September, 2015 against the order of attachment before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. The petitioner attempted follow-up with the detailed reminder dated 29th September, 2015 to the Canara Bank as well as the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal which was of no avail. Even the filing of this writ petition on the 25th of October 2016 did not persuade the respondent bank to seek cancellation of the attachment which was informed by the petitioner as being completely wrongful. The attachment was withdrawn only on 7th of March 2017 by the Recovery Officer.
31. It is evident that if the petitioner had not agitated before the Recovery Officer, the respondents may have very well proceeded with the attachment and may have even sold the property pursuant to the recovery certificate.
32. The act of attachment of the property is a serious matter. This attachment was effected without taking the basic care and effecting a title search. The attachment remained in force from 14th September, 2015 to 7th March, 2017. Undoubtedly, the present case is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the wrongful act of the respondents and the harassment, insecurity and the trauma which has been faced by 68 year old petitioner for over one and a half years.
33. It would appear that the compensation amount at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month of the attachment i.e., from 14th September, 2015 to 7th March, 2017 (seventeen and half months) being a total of Rs.2,62,500/- would be a reasonable compensation for the petitioner.
34. We may note that the petitioner has been compelled to contest the attachment in Lucknow and by filing the present writ petition in this court. The petitioner is entitled to litigation costs as well which are quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 10210/2016 & CM No.40335/2016
Date of decision : 20th June, 2017
V.K. BHATNAGAR v CANARA BANK & ANR
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
Dated: JUNE 20, 2017
