In a writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court against the action of Canara Bank (respondent) whereby an amount was deducted from the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner, as recovery of an agricultural loan taken by the petitioner, a Division Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde allowed the petition while directing Canara Bank to refrain from recovering the loan amount from the Savings Account of the petitioner and to refund the amount deducted.
The petitioner retired in 2008 from the post of teacher and thereafter began receiving a pension from the State Government into the said bank account. In 2014, the petitioner took a crop loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Canara Bank, against which the bank created a charge on his agricultural land.
Canara Bank contended that the petitioner had failed to disclose that he, along with his son, had availed a loan for floriculture and polyhouse apart from the said crop loan amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
The Court stated that the petitioner had been permitted to amend the Writ Petition by disclosing the other two loans subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/- and that the same had been complied with by the petitioner. Thus, the Court opined that technical objections would not foreclose the relief claimed by the petitioner.
The Court perused Section 11 of the Pension Act, 1871, and noted that the amount of pension has been exempted from attachment and seizure, not only by process of court but also for the satisfaction of any decree or order of any court. It was noted that proviso (g) of Section 60(1) includes the amount of pension as properties which are not liable to be attached or sold.
The Court referred to various decisions and held that withholding or deducting pension funds, notably when such funds are statutorily protected, would not only cause financial distress but would also violate the petitioner’s right to live with dignity. Thus, the Court opined that Canara Bank’s action of initiating recovery from the pension amount was illegal and unsustainable as it violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the Court opined that Canara Bank must work out a remedy to recover the amount in a manner known to and permissible by law before the appropriate forum. While holding that Canara Bank’s action of recovery from the Savings Account of the petitioner was bad in law, the Court directed Canara Bank to refund the amount deducted within four weeks.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Umakant U. Wagh
For Respondent – Mr. Aditya N. Sikchi, Mr. V.R. Patil
