Partly allowed

M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT13 Jul 2023RA/8/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal acknowledged an error in its earlier judgment stating the applicants had received a refund they had not. The court expunged the incorrect observation and directed the Recovery Officer to refund Rs. 1 Crore to the applicants as per DRAT directions. Other deposit appropriations were remanded to the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Expunged the incorrect finding that applicants received Rs. 1 Crore and directed the Recovery Officer to refund Rs. 1 Crore to the applicants.

M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patet)

¶4

Review Application No. - 08122

¶5

M.P Power Management Company Ltd,

¶6

01 ) Through its Director, Having its Regd. Office atShakti Bhawan, Rampur, Jabatpur (M.P)

¶7

1. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Mantralaya, Bhopat (M.P) Appticants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Bank of Maharashtra, Vitlage-Nunsar, Tehsit- Patan, District- Jabatpur (M.P.)

¶10

1. RuraI Etectrification Corporation Ltd., Through its Chief Executive Officer-

¶11

a) Office at Core-4, SCOPE Comptex, Lodhi Road, New Dethi

¶12

b) Project office at JDA Shopping Comptex, Madan Mahal, Jabatpur (M.P) ..... Respondents

¶13

CounseI for the Applicants : Shri Mukesh Agrawat, Advocate Counse[ for Respondent No.-l : Shri Pradeep Hazari, Advocate Respondent No.-3 : None

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 13th July, 2023)

¶16

The Appticants has fited the present Review Apptication u/r 5A(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal^(Procedure) Rutes^'1993 on 08112122 assaiting the order dated 11111122^passed by this Tribunal in^{OA No'-} 29t2001.

¶17

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that Respondent^{No.-1 Bank has} fited an OA No.-29l2001 for recovery of Rs. 2,40,13,254.00^againstthe Appticants. The Respondent No.-3 was atso^{a party Defendant in the said 0A} however, no retief was ctaimed against the^{said Defendant/Respondent} being a formal party. A Judgment was^{passed in the said OA on 22103102} aggrieved by it the Appticants^{preferred an appeal which was attowed by}

¶19

¶20

RA 08/22

¶21

setting aside the Judgment^{and the case was remanded backto this Tribunal} to decide afresh. subsequently^{after hearingthe Partiesa Judgmentwas} passed on 16t03t12 which was^{againcha[tenged before the Hon'bleDRAT in} Appear R-65/12 and^{whiteattowing the appealthe Hon'bteDRAT has} remanded back the record of^{the case for deciding afresh in view of the} judgment of the Hon'bte M.P. High Court in lA.P.^{ElectricityBoord vs Reserve} Bank of lndia &, Ors. and^{the directions/observation givenby the Hon'bte} DRAT vide order dated^{2olo2l2oo9.The case was taken up on the record of} this Tribunat and after^{hearingalt the Parties and giving due considerationto} the Judgment of the^{Hon'bte HighCourt of M'P' in WP 153911997 as we[[ as} the orders^{passed by the Hon'bte DRAT this Tribunalvide Judgment/order} dated 11t11/22 has attowed^{the oA however comingto the conctusion that} the Respondent-Bank/Appticant-Bank^{therein in the oA is entitted to recover} the Principat Amount due^{in alt the 12 accounts with pendenteliteand future} interest @10%^p.a. as on the^{date of fiting of the OA, i.e. 21 /1212000, with} costs. Aggrieved by^{this Order the Applicants have preferred the present} Review AppLication contending^{that the DRT had comptetety overlooked the} material avaitabte on record^{and therefore,the Judgmentpassedby this} Tribunat appears on account of some^{mistakeor errorapParenton face of} record which deserves to be reviewed.^{TheAppticantsaverred that the} Respondent No.-2 is a formal^{party being one of the creditorand have not} ctaimed any retief against^{the said Respondent.}

¶22

The Respondent No.'1 Bank through^{its reptyhas denied atl the} averments made by the Appticants^{in their RA. lt was contended that the} calcutation made by the CA appointed by^{the Appticants are incorrectas the} catculation submitted by the^{CA of the Defendants and the calculationas} made by the CA appointed by the Respondent-Bank^{as wetl as the calcutation} made by the independent CA appointed^{by Hon'bte DRAT defer from each} other. lt is also contended that the direction of the^{Hon'bteDRAT for} refund of Rs. 1 Crore to the Appticants are not against^{the Respondent-Bank} and since this amount is lying with the^{DRT by way of STD in favour of DRT} Jabatpur. lt is further contended that there is no meritⁱⁿ the^{instant review} application and deserves to be dismissed more so the scope for review^is very timited and the Appticants also failed to^prove any mistake apparent on the face of the record.

¶23

¶24

RA08/22

¶25

The Counsel for Appticants vehementty argued that Respondent-Bank itsetf by filing Memo in the OA copy of which is fited as Ann. A-13 in RA has admitted the outstanding to be Rs. 1,30,86,626.45 then the outstanding of Rs. Rs. 1,57,95,844.00 as ordered by the DRT in its Judgment dated 11111 122 is an apparent mistake on the face of record. He further contended that the Appticants have admitted to have received Rs. 1 core and therefore in the judgment it was wrong[y mentioned that the Applicants have admittedty received the said amount. He atso contended that the amount of Rs. 52 Lac and Rs. 25 Lac deposited by the Appticants were not adjusted by the Bank and to this effect there was no order passed in the impugned Judgment which is atso an error on the fact of record.

¶26

The Counsel for Respondent-Bank on the other hand argued that the ground with regard to quantum of dues, i.e., Rs, 1,30,86,626.45 was never taken up in OA and therefore it cannot be taken as a^ground by fiting RA.^He further argued that the refund/adjustment of amount can be considered before the Recovery Officer in the recovery^proceedings and no specific order in this regard is required in the Judgment since the Hon'bte^DRAThas atso directed the Recovery Officer to consider this^{issue in the proceedings} pending before him. The counsel further submitted that the Tribunal^has rightty passed the order for recovery of Rs. 1,57,95,844.00^{which is the sum} total of Ledger balance in the l2 accounts^{as on filing of the OA and this fact} was atso specificatly observed in Para 11 of the^{Judgment dated 11 111122} and therefore the contention on behalf of^{the Appticants that as to from} whether the Tribunat has catcutated the said^{amount is not mentioned is a} wrong statement, The Counsel contended that scope of^{review application} is very timited and the Appticants have failed to^{prove any visibte wronghas} been done by the Tribunal and therefore, it^{is prayed for dismissing the} apptication of the Appticants.

¶27

Heard both the Counsets and^perused the^{Judgmentdaled 11111122} as wetl as the record of the case,^{As far as the contention of the Appticants} with regard to the^quantam of^{outstanding dues, in Para 5.23the Appticant-} Bank has specificatty^{given ledgerbalance againsteach loan account without} apptying unapptied interest^{is considered to the Principat outstandingas on} the date of fiting of the^{oA and detait of amount in ascertainingthe total} dues is also clearty mentioned^{in Para-11 of the Judgmentdated11111 122.} Therefore, the argument^{on behal,f of the Appticantsin this regardis}

¶28

¶29

RA 08/22

¶30

basetess and is accordingty^{decidedin negative. The Appticant referred to} Memo which is annexed^{at A- 1 3 atongwithReview Applicationand is atteged} to be part of oA29l2O01^{stating that the Bank has reducedthe tiabitityto} Rs. 1.30 Crore and odd.^{However,neither the Applicant-Banknorthe} Defendants had^{pressedthis Memoor had been pointedout by any of the} parties to oA at any stage of proceedings in oA. The Defendants have^atso not after submission of^{such Memo fited any apptication f or lor amended} Written Statement or^{seek directionfrom this Tribunalfor reducing the} outstanding dues as claimed^{in the retief ctause of oA. Even during final} argument of the OA^{the Defendants did not bring to the knowtedge of the} Tribunat towards such^{admission made by the Appticant-Bank.lt was for the} first time white fiting^{RA the Appticants/Defendants therein the oA has} brought this fact before^{this Tribunat. white adjudicatingRA no new facts} can be considered^{and has onty to see if any fact consideredhas been left} out or any mistake apparent^{on the face of the record'}

¶31

Now coming to the^point with^regard to^{non'consideration of} catcutation of amount made by the^{CA apPointedby the Appticantsis} concerned, the same is directed^{by the Hon'bteDRATto fite before the} Tribunat and simitarty, the^{Respondent'Bankhas atsofited the catcutationof} amount made by the CA appointed^by it.^{However, thereis no vividity} between the catculation of both the^{CA and differ from each other. lt was} atso submitted by the Counsel for^{Respondent-Bankthat Hon'bleDRAT has} atso appointed one independent^{CA whose catcutationatso differ fromthe} calculations atready on record of^{case, Therefore,this Tribunal has in the} Judgment dated 11111122 considering this aspect^{has reached on an opinion} to attow the ledger batance as on the date of fiting of the^{OA with} pendentelite and future interest @10% compl,ying with the order of Hon'bte High Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP 1539/1997.

¶32

The Counset for Appticants contended that they have^{not receivedRs.} 1 Core as per order dated 15/03/11^passed by Hon'bte DRAT in Appeat^R- 581 12005 but in the Judgment dated 11 111 122 at^Para-1 1 it is observed that the Applicants have admittedly received the said amount which is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Appticants have also at Page 129 of RA annexed copy of order passed in OA Ex 53/02^passed by the Recovery Officer on 16105111 in support of their contention. The Counsel for Respondent-Bank has also fairly conceded that the said amount has not been

¶33

¶34

RA08t22

¶35

refunded titt date as the same is lying in the^{formof STDRin favour of DRT} Jabatpur and untess it is reteased by^{DRTrefund cannot be made.} Considering the submission made on behatf^{of boththe Partiesand perusal} of record, I am of the opinion that there^{is an errorapparent on the faceof} record to this extent. However the order^passed in^{OA Ex 53/03 by the} Recovery Officer is self-explanatory. Thus^{the parties are directed to appear} before the Recovery Officer for refund^{of Rs' 1 Crore as directedby Hon'bte} DRAT in Appeat R-581 /2005 and the^{tine of words in Para-11of the Judgment} dated 11111 122 "ond odmittedly the^{Defendont No.'l had received this} amount," hereby stands expunged.^{The RecoveryOfficer of this Tribunalis} directed to refund Rs. 1 Crore^{in whateverform the same is tying to the} Appticant-Bank as^per the direction^{of Hon'bteDRAT to the ApplicantNo.-} 1/Defendant No.-1 therein the^OA.

¶36

As far as appropriation^{of amountof Rs. 25 Lac, i.e, balance of Rs'} 1.25 Crore, deposited before^{this Tribunal, Rs. 25 Lac depositedbefore} Hon'ble DRAT and Rs.^{52,34,651 /- depositedwith the Respondent-Bankare} concerned, it is directed^{that the same can be raisedbeforethe Recovery} officer in the recovery^{proceedingswho shatt passnecessary directionfor its} appropriation.

¶37

with the above^{observationthe Review Apptication fitedon behatf of} the Appticants^{stands disposed of as partty allowed.No orderas to cost}

¶38

5 D \3 (Ram Niwas Patet) Presidine Officer

¶39

-24

M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Waliya and Company versus Bank of Baroda

Rahul Jain versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Jai Prakash Rathore versus Central Bank of India

Smt Reeta Agarwal versus Union Bank of India

sunil jain versus manibhavnam home finance india Pvt. ldt

Shri Dadarao Tale versus Vastu Housing Finance Corportion