The Karnataka bank, held the petitioners liable in the defaulter’s list which was illegal, and the petitioners at the end filed for a civil suit. This final order and judgment were given by the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which was decided by the court on the 28th of June 2021, this case was between Saroj Bala and another(petitioner) vs. Karnataka bank limited and another(respondent) CWP No. 10354 of 2021 the proceedings were held on a virtual platform due to covid – 19 pandemic. This final order and judgment were pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh and Hon’ble Mr. justice Rajesh Bhardwaj.
The following are the facts of the case, this was Regarding a recent order which was dated on the 17th of May 2021 where the petitioners were put in the defaulter’s list by the Karnataka bank limited and another. Therefore, the prayers to the court by the petitioners Saroj Bala and ex-partner Ajay Kumar of M/s Mahaluxmi overseas therefore a petition was filed by the petitioners as to quash i.e. (to put to an end or reject or consider invalid especially by legal procedure) the order which was dated on the 17th of May 2021. According to the case the petitioners were put in the category of wilful defaulters on the grounds of siphoning off funds i.e. to move money from one bank account to another, especially illegally or dishonestly, and not replaying the outstanding loan amounts despite the capacity to pay and also disposing of hypothecated property (Hypothecation basically means offering an asset as collateral security to the lender) without permission, even though the petitioners supposedly have submitted documents pertaining to another property, also directing the release of the mortgaged residential building situated in Village Bhapra, Abadi Shashtri Nagar, Near Ganga Sarvjal, MC Limit Samalkha, mortgaged at the time of grant of loan to the partnership firm. They were put in such defaulters list by the respondent (Karnataka bank limited and another). In the court a lot of argument took place and they still failed to convince the court and they eventually realized that as per the master circular the remedy of appeal before the review committee for the identification of the willful defaulters was available, it was connected with the facts that qua the second prayer for the release of the mortgaged property because an alternative property was submitted by the petitioners, and they have already filed for a civil suit.
In conclusion, the court held that “the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek their remedy before the Review Committee qua the first and second prayer in the light of suit already filed by the petitioners, which is pending consideration. Dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty”