: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2861 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2861 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2861 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT NO.876 OF 2006 SUIT NO.876 OF 2006 SUIT NO.876 OF 2006 State Bank of India .. Plaintiffs. Versus Dr.Mrs.Choity Ram Maitra & Anr. .. Defendants. And The Dean Rajiv Gandhi Medical College .. Respondent. Mr.Akshay Jadhav i/b.M/s.Utangale & Co. for plaintiffs and for applicants in support of notice of motion. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 6th October, 2008. DATE : 6th October, 2008. DATE : 6th October, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This motion is taken out by the plaintiffs so as to seek a direction against respondent that respondent should remit the entire salary to defendant No.1 towards : 2 : the repayment of the loan amount as per the declaration at Exhibit-D to the plaint. 2. This motion is not served as the packet has come back with the remark "defendant No.1 does reside at the address mentioned in the cause title". In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I thought it fit to go through the motion. 3. I have heard learned Advocate for the plaintiffs. My attention was drawn by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs to a document which is titled as "Letter of Undertaking", purported to have been signed by defendant No.1 at Exhibit-D to the plaint. By that document, the defendant No.1 has admitted receipt of the loan and by Clause No.4, she has authorised the Dean, her employer to remit the entire amount of her salary towards the satisfaction of the loan amount. This Clause No.4 is pressed into service by the plaintiffs to get a relief in terms of prayer clause (a). 4. In my view, Clause No.4 incorporated in the purported document as Letter of Undertaking cannot be enforced by the court as it is contrary to the provisions : 3 : of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in any case, an Undertaking given by a borrower in a wide manner as the one set out in Clause No.4 cannot be enforced as the said Clause is unconscionable and the court should not support such a Clause. The court cannot assist the financier and call upon the employer to remit the entire salary towards the satisfaction of the loan. It will be open for the plaintiffs to adopt appropriate proceedings to protect their interest insofar as recovery of loan is concerned. 5. In view of the aforesaid, motion is required to be dismissed. Since, defendants have remained absent, there is no question of costs. Hence the order :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R i) Motion is dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)