Allowed

Hsbc Bank v. Neeraj Kumar Ojha

DRAT19 Nov 2024REGULAR APPEAL/41/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench allowed the appellant bank's appeal, setting aside the lower DR Tribunal's order that refused a mortgagor's title deed return application and ordered loan refund and possession restoration. The court held these actions were beyond the scope of the specific stay application and remanded the file for proper disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appellate Tribunal order is set aside; parties directed to bear own costs.

Hsbc Bank versus Neeraj Kumar Ojha — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 19^th of November, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

R.A(S.A):41/2023

¶5

(TSA 443/2023 (SA No. 203/2022 in DRT-II, Chennai) on the file of DRT -III, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC), Represented by its Authorised Officer, At No. 30, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

And

¶10

Neeraj Kumar Ojha, S/o Late Kundammai Ojha,

¶11

Aged about 43 Years, PAN No. AAIPO 3982B

¶12

Meena Ojha W/o. Neeraj Ojha Aged about 39 years PAN No. AALPO3626P No. 35/12, Pooram Prakasam Road, Balaji Nagar, Royapettah, Chennai – 600 014

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

Counsel for Appellant : Ms. Ambili Menon P Counsel for Respondent : Mr. V. Santharam and Mr. G. Sanjeevi

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Appeal is filed against the order dated 14.06.2023 in TSA 443/2023 (SA No. 203/2022 in DRT-II, Chennai) on the file of DRT -III, Chennai.

¶18

Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that the Respondents filed TSA 443/2023 challenging the Possession Notice dated 01.04.2022 issued by Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,95,057.95p. During the pendency of this proceedings, the loan amount was paid on behalf of borrower by the 3^rd party, who is a tenant. Borrowers i.e. Respondents filed IA 677/2023 praying to return of original title deeds pertaining to Scheduled property filed in SA. The Bank sought time for filing Counter and typed set of documents for the reason that there was a communication received from one Suresh Kumar Govindarajan, Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Madurai, stating that the investigation against Mr. Neeraj Kumar Ojha

¶19

¶20

and Mrs. Meena Ojah is being conducted and the property documents linked with the account Nos.042-755835-001, 042-755835-002 and 042-755835-003( all bearing customer

¶21

No. 042-755835) may not be released till further communication from that office. In view of this communication, the Bank sought time for filing Counter. However, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai, proceeded to pass orders directing to refund the amount received from the buyer, together with interest at the rate of 15% p.a. (simple). Not stopping with that, there was an order to set aside the Possession Notice dated 01.04.2022 and to restore the possession to mortgagor. This order is beyond the scope of the issue raised in IA 677/2023, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶22

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondents

¶23

submitted that 3^rd party paid the entire loan amount. The amount ordered to be refunded to the Respondents may be confirmed.

¶24

¶25

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶26

From the facts elucidated, it is seen that, TSA 443/2023 was filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 01.04.2022 issued for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,11,95,057.95p. Admittedly, the entire loan amount due to Bank was paid by the 3^rd party, who is said to be a tenant. In the said circumstance, Respondents filed IA 677/2023 praying to return the original title deeds pertaining to the Schedule property. As stated earlier, the Bank sought time for filing Counter and typed set of papers for the reason that there was a communication received from GST department stating that an investigation against Respondents in connection with GST issue was pending and not to release the property documents till further communication. Learned Presiding Officer, instead of passing order on the Application in IA 677/2023 to return of documents, proceeded to dispose of the main SA itself directing to refund the amount received from the buyer with

¶27

¶28

interest at the rate of 15% p.a; set aside the Possession Notice and ordered possession to be restored to mortgagor. Order passed by Learned Presiding Officer is beyond the scope of the enquiry in TSA 443/2023.

¶29

When the amount due to Bank was paid, the course open to the Tribunal is to set aside the Possession Notice, restoration of possession to mortgagor along with Order for return of original title deeds, while taking into consideration the objection raised by Bank with regard to the communication received from GST Department. Without doing that, ordering refund of the amount with interest at 15% p.a., is beyond the scope of enquiry and against the law.

¶30

In the said circumstance, the Appeal in R.A (S.A):41/2023 is allowed. The order of Learned Presiding, DRT-III, Chennai, in TSA No. 443/2023 is set aside. Learned Presiding Officer is directed to restore TSA No.443/2023 to file, give an opportunity to file Counter in IA 677/2023, and then, dispose of IA 677/2023 and main TSA 443/2023, on

¶31

¶32

merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Both parties shall bear their own costs . All pending

¶33

IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶34

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 19^th of November, 2024]

¶35

[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan]

¶36

CHAIRPERSON

¶37

Hsbc Bank v. Neeraj Kumar Ojha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hsbc Bank v. Neeraj Kumar Ojha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

S Janardhanan versus Federal Bank & 4ors

D Vaithiyalingam versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Murugan Coir Industry and Anr. versus Canara Bank

Iqra Educational and Charitable Trust versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Achara Vyapar

M/s Kalyani Logistics Represented by its Proprietor Sri Diwakar M. Shetty versus Canara Bank