1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1633 OF 2011. Smt. Leeladevi Ratankumar Saboo and Others. ..Vrs.. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation, thr. Its Regional Manager, Nagpur and Others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. H.R. Gadhiya, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Sohoni, Advocate for respondent No.1) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE, J J. DATED : 17 th. August, 2011. Heard finally as per notice issued on 06th April, 2011. Mr. Gadhiya, learned Counsel states that the present petition is not raising any disputed question. He relies upon the ruling in AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 1797 (Karnataka State Financial Corporation .Vrs. N. Narasimahaiah and Ors.), especially paragraph Nos. 12 to 15 to urge that action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 cannot be taken against the property of deceased Ratankumar, who is claimed to be a guarantor by respondent No.1 for the loan advanced to respondent No.2. He points out that respondent No.3 is stated to be other guarantor for the said loan. According to Mr. Sohoni, learned Counsel for 2 respondent No.1, equitable mortgage executed by deceased Ratankumar is itself in dispute and it is urged that deceased had not joined in any such execution. He contends that respondent No.3 is also party to that equitable mortgage and title deeds are in custody of respondent No.1. He further points out the petitioners’ grievance about unwritten agreement between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 agreeing not to initiate any proceedings for recovery against respondent No.2. According to him as disputed questions arise remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy. After hearing respective counsel, we find that petitioners’ have at least before us not raised any disputed question. Only contention raised is that as alleged equitable mortgage is not by a borrower but by a guarantor, action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 is not legally sustainable against it. Perusal of Judgment on which learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance shows that it squarely supports to the contention of the learned Counsel. Hon’ble Apex Court has found that such action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 is not envisaged against surety or guarantor even if said surety or guarantor may have mortgaged property in that respect. In this situation, the petition is partly allowed. The action initiated against the property claimed to be mortgaged 3 by deceased Ratankumar under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act,1951 by various notices like dated 21/10/2010, 24/11/2010, 15/12/2010 and 27/01/2011 is quashed and set-aside. Needless to mention that respondent No.1 is entitled to take recourse to such other remedies against guarantor as are open to it in law. With this direction Writ Petition is partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh