Disposed

Reliance Asset Reconstructions Co.Ltd v. M/S.Faiyaz Cell Zone

DRT8 Jul 2022TA/42/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal held that a Maintenance Application filed by a third defendant seeking refund of an alleged deposit is not maintainable. The Tribunal ruled it lacks the competence to grant such relief in the present proceedings, though it did not prejudice the petitioner's right to seek remedies in an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of as not maintainable.

Reliance Asset Reconstructions Co.Ltd versus M/S.Faiyaz Cell Zone — DRT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 8^th day of July, 2022

¶3

PRESENT : SHRI T.RAJESH

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

NDN 492/2021 (MA) in

¶6

OA 53/2017

¶7

Mrs.V.Kayalvizhi, W/o.Mr.Y.S.Ramesh, Door No.12, Plot No.42, 5^th Avenue East, 7^th Main Road, Dhandeeswaram Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.

¶8

… Petitioner/3^rd Defendant.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Reliance Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Manager - Legal, “Reliance House”, 4^th Floor, No.5, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. … 1^st Respondent/Applicant. *(Amended as per Order in I.A.No.1052/2018 dated 03/01/2019).

¶11

M/s.Faiyaz Cell Zone, Rep. by its Prop. Mrs.Lalitha Balasubramanian, Door No.15/9, Amudha Street, Dhandeswaram Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.

¶12

Mrs.Lalitha Balasubramanian, W/o.Mr.Balasubramanian, Door No.15/9, Amudha Street, Dhandeswaram Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.

¶13

Mr.Vijay Balasubramanian, S/o.Mr.Balasubramanian, Door No.15/9, Amudha Street, Dhandeswaram Nagar, Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.

¶14

¶15

Mrs.Naseema Bee, W/o.Mr.M.K.Salauddin, Door No.10A, E.V.R.Periyar Street, Periya Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118.

¶16

Mr.M.K.Salauddin, Door No.10A, E.V.R.Periyar Street, Periya Kodungaiyur, Chennai – 600 118. … Respondents/Defendants.

¶17

Counsel for Petitioner/3^rd Defendant : Mr.G.Nanmaran. Counsel for Respondent : ……

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed by the petitioner/3^rd defendant vide Dy.No.16503 dt.27.12.2019 and is placed before the Bench as the Registry has raised objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.

¶20

The petitioner/D3 in OA in which the final order has been passed by this Tribunal on 09.09.2019 wherein this Tribunal had held that Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds dt.01.03.2011 executed by D3 who is the petitioner herein in favour of the original lender, Indian Bank show that the same is given as security for credit facility of overdraft limit only of Rs.40,00,000/- extended in favour of D1. It is also held that no document is available evidencing extension of equitable mortgage created by D3 in respect of reduced overdraft facility of Rs.20 lakhs in favour of D1. It is also held that the separate contract entered by the original lender with D1 and D2 for the overdraft facility of Rs.20 lakhs is without consent of petitioner herein and the petitioner will stand

¶21

¶22

discharged from his obligation created in Exh.A19 in the OA. Consequently, extension of mortgage created in Exh.A19 in favour of D1 represented by D2 does not arise at all. In terms of the above findings, this Tribunal dismissed the claim of the applicant against D3 to D6 which includes petitioner herein.

¶23

On the above factual matrix, this petition is filed seeking a prayer to direct the 1^st respondent/applicant to refund the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner who is 3^rd defendant to the credit of OA 53/2017.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for petitioner. This is true that this Tribunal by final order in OA found that so called mortgage claimed to have been created by the petitioner in relation to the credit facility in question in the OA is not enforceable and also that no relief can be granted against D3. The petitioner is now taking shelter on the findings of this Tribunal in the final order had filed this application seeking refund of an amount of Rs.40,000/- claimed to have been deposited by her with the respondent. Going by the final order passed by this Tribunal there is no reference as to so such remittances made by the petitioner and if at all any remittances are there, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps to get her grievances redressed in appropriate forum. This Tribunal is not competent to grant a relief of refund of amount even if the same is originally remitted with the applicant.

¶25

¶26

Without prejudicing the right of the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs, if she is entitled. Hence this Tribunal is of the view that the objection raised by the Registry is valid and as such the present petition is not maintainable.

¶27

In the result, NDN 492/2021 (MA) is disposed as not maintainable. ( Dictated to PA, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this 8^th day of July, 2022 )

¶28

Sd./(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Reliance Asset Reconstructions Co.Ltd v. M/S.Faiyaz Cell Zone

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Asset Reconstructions Co.Ltd v. M/S.Faiyaz Cell Zone

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

D Dinesh versus Union Bank of India

A Gajendran versus City Union Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Sona Arts

Radja Segar Flore versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Pathus

S Saravanan versus Varthana Finance Private Limited