In Metsil Exports Private Ltd. & anr. v. Punjab National Bank & anr., the question before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court was what is the legal position regarding
publication of a demand notice under section 13(2) of the Act in two
newspapers having wide circulation with the photograph of a
director/guarantor? Held, If a demand notice under section 13(2) of the
Act is served on the borrower/guarantor in the manner statutorily
provided for and there is no reason at all to believe that service has
not been effected, question of publication thereof in the newspapers
does not and cannot arise. It is only when an opinion could reasonably
be formed that the borrower is evading service of the demand notice and
that alternative modes of service have been exhausted without seemingly
positive result in view thereby making it imperative to proceed for the
last option i.e. publication in newspapers, that recourse thereto could
be taken. The requirement of formation of opinion, which must be
available in the record, is the ‘sine qua non’ and the law cannot be
observed in the breach.
In view
of the nature of constitution of the Companies / Trust / Society etc.,
photographs of the authorized persons / official(s) concerned viz.
Directors / Chairman / Secretary / Treasurer / Trustee etc. should not
be published.
In this context, it is worth to recollect that Calcutta High Court in Ujjal Kumar Das and Another v. State Bank of India held that publishing the photographs of loanees is not a mode contemplated under the Sarfaesi Act.
Following the Calcutta judgment, Justice V Chitambaresh of Kerala High Court in Venu PR Vs. SBI held that the practice of exhibiting a photograph of a person and shaming him in public for the sin of being in an impecunious condition cannot be encouraged in a civilised society like ours. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/S Prakash Granite Industries vs. The Punjab National Bank held that it is within the propriety of the bank to publish a photograph of defaulter in newspaper in the event of failure on the part of such borrowers.
In this context, it is worth to recollect that Calcutta High Court in Ujjal Kumar Das and Another v. State Bank of India held that publishing the photographs of loanees is not a mode contemplated under the Sarfaesi Act.
Following the Calcutta judgment, Justice V Chitambaresh of Kerala High Court in Venu PR Vs. SBI held that the practice of exhibiting a photograph of a person and shaming him in public for the sin of being in an impecunious condition cannot be encouraged in a civilised society like ours. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/S Prakash Granite Industries vs. The Punjab National Bank held that it is within the propriety of the bank to publish a photograph of defaulter in newspaper in the event of failure on the part of such borrowers.
Comments
Post a Comment