Whether bank is liable for payment of compensation for wrongful attachment of property?

 Given the above narration of facts, we are satisfied that the
action of the Bank touted as a “mistake”, was not a genuine
mistake but was a deliberate act which they have stood by even
after they were put to notice that they had illegally attached the
petitioner’s property. The respondents did not withdraw the
attachment even when the petitioner filed objection on 14th
September, 2015 against the order of attachment before the Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. The petitioner attempted follow-up
with the detailed reminder dated 29th September, 2015 to the
Canara Bank as well as the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery
Tribunal which was of no avail. Even the filing of this writ
petition on the 25th of October 2016 did not persuade the
respondent bank to seek cancellation of the attachment which was
informed by the petitioner as being completely wrongful. The
attachment was withdrawn only on 7th of March 2017 by the
Recovery Officer. 
31. It is evident that if the petitioner had not agitated before the
Recovery Officer, the respondents may have very well proceeded
with the attachment and may have even sold the property pursuant
to the recovery certificate.
32. The act of attachment of the property is a serious matter.
This attachment was effected without taking the basic care and
effecting a title search. The attachment remained in force from 14th
September, 2015 to 7th March, 2017. Undoubtedly, the present
case is a fit case where the petitioner deserves to be compensated
for the wrongful act of the respondents and the harassment,
insecurity and the trauma which has been faced by 68 year old
petitioner for over one and a half years.
33. It would appear that the compensation amount at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per month of the attachment i.e., from 14th September,
2015 to 7th March, 2017 (seventeen and half months) being a total
of Rs.2,62,500/- would be a reasonable compensation for the
petitioner.
34. We may note that the petitioner has been compelled to
contest the attachment in Lucknow and by filing the present writ
petition in this court. The petitioner is entitled to litigation costs as
well which are quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 W.P.(C) 10210/2016 & CM No.40335/2016
 Date of decision : 20th June, 2017
V.K. BHATNAGAR 
v
CANARA BANK & ANR
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA
Dated:JUNE 20, 2017

Print Page

Third person's property can not be attached in execution merely on the basis of the vague and general statement of DH

 I am inclined to observe that the
Defendants   residence   or     address   that   itself     cannot   be   the
foundation to attach movable or immovable property to execute an ex­
parte decree like this.   The Plaintiffs or a party  who wants to attach
movable as well as immovable  property must demonstrate on record
that  the  Judgment  debtor's    property   is  owned,  and/  or  possessed
and/ or he has right to dispose   of the property in question.       I am
inclined   to  observe   that   in  absence      of  any  such  averments,     the
issuance of warrant  of attachment of the property in such a fashion
is contrary  to the provisions of law and can cause great injustice and
hardship   to all  the concerned.     The third person's property       just

cannot be attached by the Plaintiff merely on the basis   of the vague
and general statement.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.   1562   OF  2010
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION  NO. 594  OF 2010
IN 
SUMMARY SUIT NO.   3206   OF   2008 

M/s. N.V. Balta Industries V/s. M/s. Tike International 

CORAM :    ANOOP  V.  MOHTA, J.
DATE    :     24th APRIL,   2013.
Citation; 2013 (4)ALL M R 204,2013(5) Mh. L.J. 128

Print Page