Dismissed

P Kali Charan v. National Trust Housing Finance Limited

DRAT6 Aug 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine, holding the impugned order of the DRT-II Hyderabad maintaining an application for recall of deposited funds maintainable. It ruled the application, filed as a review after two years, was not legally maintainable as the original order was clear and final. The Appellant was directed to withdraw the amount deposited with the DRT reg

What did the court decide?

Appellant at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited with the Registry of DRT. No order as to costs.

P Kali Charan versus National Trust Housing Finance Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

Reportable/ Not Reportable

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

(Appeal Dy. No. 648 of 2024)

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. No. 51 of 2017 in DRT—II, Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

CHAIRPERSON

¶7

P. Kali Charan, son of P.V. Shastry, Resident of 11-13-/1, Alkapuri Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad – 500035 Presently residing at H. No. 6-3-596/42 SVR Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500004.

¶8

P. Lakshmi Narayana, son of P.V. Shastry, Resident of House No. 2-178, Vani Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500047 Presently residing at: H. No. 6-3-596/42 SVR Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 500004.

¶9

…Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

National Trust Housing Finance Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager, H. No. 102, 1^st Floor, MHR House. No. 261/M-3, TRT, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad – 500038 presently situated at Flat No. 601, A, 6^th Floor, 6-6-093, VV Vintage Boulevard Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500082 Head Office at Subrahmanian Building, Ground Floor, 1/1B, Club House Road (Off Anna Salai) ( Near Spencers Plaza Junction Chennai 600002.

¶12

P. Vidyadhari (died) wife of Mallikarjuna Rao, Resident of 6-3596/42, Venkataramana Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 500004.

¶13

T. Phani Choudary (died) per L.Rs. (R 6 to 8) Son of T. Rama Rao, Resident of 1-4-37/72, Plot No. 105, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad 500080.

¶14

K Vijay Bhasker Reddy son of K Subba Raghava Reddy, Resident of 3-4-526/20, Barkathpura, Hyderabad – 500027.

¶15

The Authorized Officer, National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.1^st Floor, MHR House No. 261/M-3 TRT, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

¶17

Thotakura Swathi, wife of T. Phani Choudary, Resident of 1966/9/A, Prashanth Nagar, Dr. A.S.R. Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad – 500062.

¶18

Thotakura Gargeya, resident of 19-66/9/A, Prashanth Nagar, Dr. A.S.R. Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062.

¶19

Thotakura Sai Praneeth, resident of 19-66/9/A, Prashanth Nagar, Dr. A.S.R. Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad 500062.

¶20

… Respondents Counsel for the parties Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellants None for the Respondents

¶21

JUDGMENT : On 6^th August, 2024

¶22

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶23

Admission

¶24

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

¶25

2. Instant Appeal has been preferred against an order and judgment passed by Learned DRT-II Hyderabad (P Kali Charan versus National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.) dismissing the I.A. No. 2081 of 2019. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the I.A, Appellant preferred the Appeal along with an Application for waiver.

¶26

3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on admission and prima facie I am of the view that the

¶27

¶28

impugned order passed is in accordance with law for the following reasons.

¶29

4. It appears that the S.A. No. 51 of 2017 old No. S.A. No. 96 of 2007 was decided by the Learned DRT Hyderabad on 12^th May, 2017 wherein following operative order was passed:

¶30

“ In the result, the present Securitization Application is allowed as under:-

¶31

i) The Auction sale of the application schedule property held on 02.06.2007 and the consequential Sale Certificate dated 16/06/2007 issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 in favour of Respondents No. 3 & 4 are hereby set-aside; ii) The Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 are hereby directed to refund the sale amount, deposited by the Respondents No. 3 & 4 Auction Purchasers, with interest @ 6% p.a., simple from the date of deposit till the date of refund, within 15 days from the date of this order, to the Respondents No. 3 & 4; iii) The Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 are further directed to take back the possession of the application schedule property from the Respondents No. 3 & 4 Auction Purchasers, within 15 days from the date of this order; iv) The Registry is directed to return the amount of Rs.7,85,455/- deposited by the Applicants to the credit of the present S.A. with interest accrued if any, to the Applicants forthwith;

¶32

v) The Applicants are at liberty to approach the Respondents No. 1 & 5 and pay the total outstanding dues, with interest and expenses towards discharge of their liability within one month from the date of this order. vi) In the event the Applicants fail to discharge their liability within one month as stated supra, the Respondent Nos. 1 & 5 shall be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the secured asset in accordance with law.”

¶33

5. Thereafter I.A. No. 2081 of 2017 was filed by the Appellant with a prayer to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 i.e. National Trust Housing Finance Ltd. and the Authorised

¶34

¶35

Officer, National Trust Housing Finance Ltd. to collect Rs.7,85,455/- with accrued interest lying and deposited with the DRT with further consequential relief. This Application was dismissed by the Learned DRT after hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties. Respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that on the request of the petitioners vide letter dated 01.06.2017 they communicated to the Appellant that the outstanding dues were Rs.31,81,033/- as on 01.06.2017 and as on 28^th February, 2023 petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 54,40,191/-. Learned DRT held that the final order was passed with a specific instruction to the parties. There is no apparent error or typographical mistake in the order. Application is moved in the form of a Review Petition which is not maintainable.

¶36

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the amount of Rs.7,85,455/- was deposited by the Appellant with the Registry of the DRT on 19^th December, 2008 which is lying there. Accordingly, a prayer was made to direct the Financial Institution to receive back the money from the Registry of the DRT along with accrued interest. 7. As far as merits of the matter are concerned, order dated 12^th May, 2017 is very clear. There is no ambiguity in the impugned order. It is also on record that this order was not challenged and attained finality. It is also not in dispute that the amount deposited by the Appellant is lying with the Registry of the DRT. Appellant is also not challenging that no interest was accrued on this amount because the prayer was made for direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to

¶37

¶38

collect the amount with accrued interest. It means that Appellant is admitting that the amount is deposited in some interest bearing account.

¶39

8. I.A. was moved after about two years of passing of the judgment under Section 22(g) & (h) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Application is misconceived as it is moved in the form of a Review Petition which is not legally maintainable as has been rightly held by the Learned DRT that there is no typographical error or arithmetical error in the impugned order. If the Appellant was aggrieved by the order dated 12^th May, 2017, he could have very well challenged the same, but it was not done. Accordingly, since the amount of Rs. 7,85,455/- is still deposited with the Registry of the DRT, Appellant is at liberty to withdraw the same but as far as the impugned order is concerned, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Appeal is dismissed in limini at admission stage. Impugned order on I.A. No. 2081 of 2019 in SA No. 51 of 2017 passed by Learned DRT-II Hyderabad (P Kali Charan versus National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.) is confirmed. All the IAs stand disposed of.

¶42

No Order as to costs.

¶43

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶44

¶45

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶46

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶47

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6^th day of August, 2024.

¶48

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶49

Dated: 6^th August, 2024 7/tp

P Kali Charan v. National Trust Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Kali Charan v. National Trust Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms R C Enterprise and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Rajdeep Ghosh

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. versus Samir Nath

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Narasimha Traders (Prop. P. Vaishali)

Icici Bank Limited versus V.S High Rise Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Alluri Vijaya Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India and Ors.