Application for release of excess deposited amount was rejected. Court held no excess funds existed as total dues across three accounts significantly exceeded deposited amount and auction proceeds from mortgaged property.
None. Application rejected with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
M.A. No. 76/2020 In Regular Appeal No. 81/2008
Aman Jaiswal Vs. State Bank of India
Present: Shri Shadab Alam, counsel for the Applicant, Shri P.K. Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
ORDER Date of Decision: 04.09.2024
JUSTICE R. D. KHARE, CHAIRPERSON
1
still some balance is due to the applicants, to get the decree executed to that extent. ”
2
annum w.e.f. 09.04.2013, 15/2004 for Rs. 17,62,309/plus future interest @ 13.77% per annum w.e.f. 05.04.2013 and recovery certificate no. 19/2006 was issued for Rs. 14,20,064/- plus future interest @ 13.77% per annum w.e.f. 13.09.2004. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the said decree, the outstanding against the appellant/defendants comes to Rs. 91.06 lacs as on 15.02.2008, against which the borrowers have only deposited Rs. 14,38,176/-. It was further contended that the mortgaged property was sold for a sum of Rs. 52.00 lacs and after adjusting the entire amount deposited by the borrowers as well as the amount of sale proceed, the total amount comes to Rs. 66,38,176/- against the total dues of Rs. 91.06 lacs plus future interest thereon from 16.02.2008.
3
10.01.2005 passed by the Tribunal below in O.A. No. 80/2003 filed by the respondent-Bank, which was decreed for a sum of Rs. 14,38,175.74 together with pendentelite and future interest @ 13.77% per annum with quarterly rests along with costs w.e.f. 09.04.2003 till the full recovery is made from the appellant/defendants. It is admitted that for maintaining the appeal, the appellant has deposited a total sum of Rs. 14,38,176/- before this Tribunal, which was ordered to be released in favor of the Bank by this Tribunal while deciding the appeal finally vide judgment dated 23.01.2009. It is also admitted fact that the Bank had filed three original applications against the appellant/defendants as detailed in the preceding paragraph of this order, which were allowed in favor of the Bank. If the amount deposited by the applicant is considered against only the present appeal filed before this Tribunal, even then the said amount does not appear to be over and above the same.
4
amount with the respondent-Bank, which can be directed to be refunded in favor of the appellant, as the borrower, guarantor or mortgagor is liable jointly and severally.
CHAIRPERSON
VN Giri
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the amount deposited by the appellant towards maintaining an appeal constitutes an excess balance requiring refund to the appellant given outstanding dues across multiple accounts.
Whether the auction proceeds from mortgaged property and appellant's deposited amount sufficient to clear outstanding dues of Rs. 91.06 lacs and future interest.
Whether joint and several liability of borrowers and guarantors to pay remaining dues negates any claim for excess refund.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aman Jaiswal
State Bank of India
R. D. KHARE
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
