DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails an action of the State Bank of India as communicated by the writing dated December 6, 2016.
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a student, perusing her higher studies abroad. She was awarded a scholarship. She has a bank account with State Bank of India. She had deposited the scholarship amount in such account maintained with the State Bank of India. Since she was travelling abroad for her higher studies, she has inducted her father as the joint account holder in respect of such account. The bank now alleges since the father of the petitioner is a defaulter of certain loan amounts, the account held by the petitioner along with her father is put on hold. The bank has threatened to adjust the amount lying in such account against the outstanding in respect of her father.
(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 498 (Anumati v. Punjab National Bank), All India Reporter 1971 Andhra Pradesh 165 (Nadikatla Anjanna and Ors. v. Bandi Ramakrishna and Ors.), All India Reporter 1944 Patna 363 (Radha Raman Choudhary and Anr. v. Chota Nagpur Banking Association Ltd. and Ors.) and an unreported judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in RFA 164 of 2010 and CM No. 4991 of 2010 (Prabha Kaul through representatives v. Chandra Kaul Muthoo and Ors.) in support of the proposition that the bank does not have a bankers lien over a joint account.;