1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7314/2009 (Smt.Rukmani Devi Vs. S.B.B.& J Rajsamand) Date of Order :: 6th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sudheer Sharma,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition. From the averments as taken in the petition and the document annexed thereto, it appears that the respondent Bank had advanced a loan to one Smt.Anusuya Mantri, Proprietor M/s Neelam Industries, Tanvan, Tehsil Amet, District Rajsamand wherefor, according to the petitioner, the husband and son of the loanee stood as guarantors and besides this, the title deed of an industrial plot at Jaswantpura was also deposited by them with the bank as security. However, a fixed term deposit receipt (FDR) in the amount of Rs.10,24,576/- as belonging to the petitioner was also kept with the bank as collateral security towards the said loan. It appears that on 03.03.2009, the loanee addressed the communication (Annex.1) to the creditor bank seeking information about her loan account and the FDR and NSC 2 kept with the bank so that she could make arrangements for deposit of the loan amount. It appears further that on 09.04.2009, the said loanee addressed another communication (Annex.2) to the bank to the effect that the FDRs placed by her including those belonging to herself, her husband, and so also the petitioner, may be paid before the dates of maturity and the amount be deposited in her loan account and she be informed of the remaining dues so as to enable her to square up the account. By its letter dated 28.05.2009 (Annex.3), the respondent bank informed the petitioner about the said proposition of the debtor and also stated that arrangement be made for closure of the loan account within three days and else, her FDR would be adjusted towards the dues. The petitioner responded with a letter dated 03.06.2009 (Annex.4) with the submissions that the debtor herself being ready to deposit the loan amount, there was no occasion to encash the securities; that the recovery ought to be first effected against the debtor and her property and the guarantor could be proceeded against only thereafter; and that the amount of FDR belonging to the petitioner be not adjusted in the loan account. However, the respondent bank informed the petitioner by its communication dated 08.06.2009 (Annex.6) that the FDR for Rs.10,24,596/- in Account No.61055871561 had been 3 adjusted in the loan account with a total amount of Rs.10,70,536/- with interest. The bank had also issued a letter dated 06.06.2009 (Annex.5) to the debtor that the industry having been closed, she should square up the loan accounts within three days and else, the bank would be adopting legal proceedings. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to question the proceedings adopted by the bank in adjusting her FDR against the loan account and it has been contended that when the bank had obtained the guarantee from the husband and son of the loanee and had also taken as security an industrial plot at Jaswantpura and was having sufficient means to recover the outstanding, it had acted wholly illegally and arbitrarily in proceeding against the property of the petitioner. It is submitted that the FDR of the petitioner was placed only as a collateral security and the bank could not have directly recovered its outstanding from this FDR without first attempting to recover the loan from the loanee, the guarantors, and the security available. It is submitted that the bank has acted wholly illegally in attempting to deprive the petitioner of her property though she had not stood as a guarantor in this loan transaction; that the bank has not looked at the propositions stated by the loanee, of herself being ready to square up the accounts; and that the bank has acted rather 4 malafide when on one hand suggested giving time to the loanee to close the account under the communication dated 06.06.2009 but on the other hand, surprisingly, alleged adjustment of the FDR of the petitioner on 03.06.2009. The submission that the loanee suggested anything contrary to adjustment of the FDR of the petitioner is not correct. Such was a proposition clearly stated in her communication dated 09.04.2009 (Annex.2). In any case, indisputable it is that the petitioner voluntarily placed her FDR as a collateral security with the bank in relation to the loan in question. The bank had informed the petitioner of its intention to proceed against the FDR placed with it as security by the communication dated 28.05.2009 and only thereafter, adjusted the same on 03.06.2009. The petitioner having voluntarily permitted her property to be placed with the bank, even if named as collateral security, the bank cannot be faulted in recovering the dues from the same. On the submissions and suggestions as made, no such case of illegality is made out as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition does not merit admission and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni