Panchkula court issues attachment warrant to SBI branch
Branch failed to comply with a court order to pay compensation to a plaintiff in a cheque dishonour case
For failing to comply with an order of paying compensation, the Panchkula civil court has issued a warrant regarding attachment of movable property to a State Bank of India (SBI) branch here.
Panchkula civil judge (senior division) Hitesh Garg stated in his order that “SBI through its branch manager was ordered by the court to pay plaintiff Anil Kumar an amount of ₹32,000, but the sum has not been paid.”
“These are to command you to attach the movable property of the SBI through its branch manager, R/o SCO 14, Sector 10, Panchkula, as set forth in the schedule hereunto annexed, or which shall be pointed out to you by the said SBI through branch manager,” the order mentions.
The court has directed to return this warrant on or before March 15, 2020, with an endorsement certifying the day on which and manner in which it has been executed or why it has not been executed.
In August 2018, the court had ordered that the petitioner having an account with the SBI had obtained a housing loan from the PNB Housing Finance Limited. He wanted to settle the loan within a short span of time, hence he issued cheque of May 25 that year in favour of PNB Housing Finance Limited amounting to ₹15 lakh from his account maintained with the respondent.
However, the said cheque was dishonoured with remarks “kindly contact drawer/drawee bank and please present again”, the court stated. The bank also imposed a penalty. Later, the plaintiff sent the amount from another account.
The court observed that since the applicant has enough deposit in his account to honour the cheque, by dishonouring it, the respondent (bank) has adopted unfair practice, which amounts to deficiency in service.
This petition was opposed by the bank, which stated that the cheque was sent to the centralised clearing cell of SBI, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and the same was returned by the clearing cell.
In the same year, the court had passed the award in favour of the petitioner and directed the respondent to pay ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹11,000 as litigation expenses.
However, the bank did not comply with the order, following which the court issued the attachment warrant.
