Disposed

Mrs Bindiya Wallia v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT22 Sept 2023SA/33/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal directed the applicant to deposit the agreed settlement amount of Rs.1 crore to the bank. The bank is then directed to release the property title deeds to the applicant within one week, overriding a family member's claim that possession should go to another party due to a pending High Court matter.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to release title deeds to Applicant within one week after receiving Rs.1 crore settlement amount.

22/09/2023

Ex.
No.

Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar,
DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in SA 33 of 2023
Mrs Bindiya Wallia Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Limited

Next date

T1 MUMBA
Advocate Charles D’Souza a/w Archit V. & Atul
Gupta appeared for the Applicant.
Advocate
Nikhil
Rajani
i/b
V.
Deshpande
appeared for the Respondent No.1.
Advocate Aaditya M. i/b Dhruve Liladhar & Co.
appeared for the Respondent No.3.
1.
Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that
the Applicant and Respondent No.1 are
agreed for full and final settlement of the
loan account.
As per the settlement, the
Applicant has agreed to deposit Rs.1.00

crores to the Respondent No.1 (including

Rs.20
lakhs
which
has
already
been

deposited
by
the
Applicant
to
the
Respondent No.1) therefore, he submits that
the impugned account may be closed and
the NOC may be issued and further title

deeds may be returned to the Applicant of

the property i.e. Flat No.102, 1^st Floor, Legacy Co-op Housing Society Limited, Plot No.17, TPS No.4, Third Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050 (hereinafter referred to as “property in question”).
AI 2. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Respondent No.1 has agreed for the settlement of the loan account
MB however, the NOC shall be issued after receiving the full and final settled amount.
T1 MU 3. Since the Applicant and Respondent No.1 has agreed for full and final settlement amount of Rs.1.00 crore, therefore, they are hereby directed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreed between them and the Applicant is directed to deposit remaining Rs.80 lakhs on or before 25.09.2023.
DR 4. The issue which still remains pending is releasing the title deeds of the property in question.
5. It is informed by the Applicant that the Applicant and her deceased mother-in-law (mother of Respondent No.3) were the owners of the property in question and after

the property
i.e.
Flat No.102, 1^st Floor,
Legacy Co-op Housing Society Limited, Plot
No.17, TPS No.4, Third Road, Bandra West,
Mumbai-400050 (hereinafter referred to as
“property in question”).

AI
2.
Ld.
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
No.1
submits
that
the
Respondent
No.1
has
agreed for the settlement of the loan account

MB
however, the NOC shall be issued after
receiving the full and final settled amount.

T1 MU
3.
Since the Applicant and Respondent No.1
has agreed for full and final settlement
amount of Rs.1.00 crore, therefore, they are
hereby directed to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the settlement agreed between
them
and
the
Applicant is directed to
deposit remaining Rs.80 lakhs on or before
25.09.2023.

DR
4.
The issue which still remains pending is
releasing the title deeds of the property in
question.

5.
It is informed by the Applicant that the
Applicant and her deceased mother-in-law
(mother
of
Respondent
No.3)
were the
owners of the property in question and after

the death of her, still probate has not been declared in favour of any of the parties therefore, the documents of the property in
question may be handed over to the
AI Applicant herein. He also informed that there is a matrimonial dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent No.3. He also states that since the Applicant is paying
the entire settlement amount in the
impugned account therefore, the title
M documents may be handed over to the Applicant herein only.
1 MU 6. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.3 vehemently objected to the contention of Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and informed that the matter qua the ‘Will’ of the deceased mother of Respondent No.3 is pending
RT before the Hon’ble High Court. He also submitted that he has no objection in case
D the possession will be taken over by the Respondent No.1.
7. It is matter of record that this Tribunal vide
order dated 03.05.2023 directed the
Respondent No.3 to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs on or
before 08.05.2023 however, the Respondent
No.3 did not deposit the same. Thereafter,

the death of her, still probate has not been
declared in favour of any of the parties
therefore, the documents of the property in

question
may
be
handed
over
to
the

AI
Applicant herein. He also informed that
there is a matrimonial dispute between the
Applicant and the Respondent No.3.
He
also states that since the Applicant is paying

the
entire
settlement
amount
in
the

impugned
account
therefore,
the
title

M
documents may be handed over to the
Applicant herein only.

1 MU
6.
Ld.
Counsel
for
the
Respondent
No.3
vehemently objected to the contention of Ld.
Counsel for the Applicant and informed that
the matter qua the ‘Will’ of the deceased
mother of Respondent No.3 is pending

RT
before the Hon’ble High Court. He also
submitted that he has no objection in case

D
the possession will be taken over by the
Respondent No.1.

7.
It is matter of record that this Tribunal vide

order
dated
03.05.2023
directed
the

Respondent No.3 to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs on or

before 08.05.2023 however, the Respondent

No.3 did not deposit the same. Thereafter,

on the request of the Respondent No.3, this Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2023 granted 10 days further time to the Respondent No.3 to deposit with the Respondent No.1 an amount of Rs.10 lakhs instead of Rs.5 lakhs but the Respondent No.3 again failed to
deposit the said amount. Further, on
UMBA 24.05.2023 this Tribunal directed the Respondent No.3 to remain present in person before this Tribunal however, despite the direction of this Tribunal the Respondent No.3 did not appear before this Tribunal on 29.05.2023 and 12.06.2023.
RT1 M 8. Thus, looking to the conduct of the Respondent No.3, this Tribunal is of the view that the interest of justice & equity lies in favour of the Applicant herein, therefore, the Applicant is directed to pay Rs.1.00 crores (Rs.20 lakhs already deposited) to the
D Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 is directed to release title deeds and all other documents of the property in question in favour of the Applicant No.1, within one week after receiving the full and final settlement amount of Rs.1.00 crore.

on the request of the Respondent No.3, this
Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2023 granted
10 days further time to the Respondent No.3
to deposit with the Respondent No.1 an
amount of Rs.10 lakhs instead of Rs.5 lakhs
but the Respondent No.3 again failed to

deposit
the
said
amount.
Further,
on

UMBA
24.05.2023
this
Tribunal
directed
the
Respondent
No.3
to
remain
present
in
person before this Tribunal however, despite
the direction of this Tribunal the Respondent
No.3 did not appear before this Tribunal on
29.05.2023 and 12.06.2023.

RT1 M
8.
Thus,
looking
to
the
conduct
of
the
Respondent No.3, this Tribunal is of the
view that the interest of justice & equity lies
in favour of the Applicant herein, therefore,
the Applicant is directed to pay Rs.1.00
crores (Rs.20 lakhs already deposited) to the

D
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 is
directed to release title deeds and all other
documents of the property in question in
favour of the Applicant No.1, within one
week
after
receiving the full and final
settlement amount of Rs.1.00 crore.

9. With the above said direction, the present SA is hereby disposed off. File be closed and consigned to record.
DRT1 MUMBAI P.O. DRT-I

9.
With the above said direction, the present
SA is hereby disposed off.
File be closed and consigned to record.

DRT1 MUMBAI
P.O.
DRT-I

Mrs Bindiya Wallia v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Bindiya Wallia v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Pawan Trading Company

Canara Bank versus Kishor

Sangita James Gaikwad versus the Collector /

Anil Seshadri Iyengar versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Ms India Steel Works Limited versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Beenu Tushar Narula versus Idfc Bank Limited