Partly allowed

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. v. Bank of India

DRT18 Sept 2024MA/17/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous application in part, directing the Respondent Bank to refund Rs. 40,000 comprising the sale proceeds of movable assets and the assessed value of three gas cylinders, to be paid within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed to refund Rs. 40,000 to the applicants within 15 days by approx of moving movable assets and cost of three cylinders.

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. versus Bank of India — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – 1, KOLKATA JEEVANSUDHA BLDG. 9^TH FLOOR, 42/C, J.L.NEHRU ROAD, KOLKATA – 700071

¶3

BEFORE SHRI AMBUJA MOHAN DAS, PRESIDING OFFICER MA/17/2024 Arising out of TSA 05 of 2022 (SA 142 OF 2015)

¶4

1 Rudra Bhattacharya, son of Sri Bipradas Bhattacharya, residing at 11, M. M. Feeder Road, Kolkata – 700 057;

¶5

Smt. Srabanti Bhattacharya, wife of Sri Rudra Bhattacharya, residing at 11, M. M Feeder Road, Kolkata – 70057;

¶6

…… Applicants

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Authorized Officer , Bank of India, Kolkata Zone, 5, B.T.M. Sarani, Bank of India Building, 6^th Floor, Kolkata – 700001;

¶9

Bank of India, Baranagar Branch, 39, Tobin Road, Kolkata – 700 036;

…… Respondents

For Applicant:

None

For Respondents : Mr. R.C. Prusti and Ms. Sunita KabiLd. Advocates.

¶14

JUDGEMENT

¶15

Delivered on 18^th September, 2024.

¶16

Applicant Rudra Bhattacharya has filed this MA/17/2024 after the order of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in WPA/13071/2024 dated 21/05/2024. The Applicant filed Writ Application before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta and Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner has appeared in person with leave of the court and submitted that though the Tribunal having directed to return the moveable property as per inventory list, the moveable properties have not yet been returned to the petitioner .

¶17

¶18

Hon’ble High Court Calcutta also recorded that I do not find any occasion for the petitioner to challenge the same. Hon’ble High Court Calcutta further observed that the petitioner is aggrieved with non-implementation of the said order, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the Presiding Officer of the concerned Tribunal for implementation of its order directing return of the movable properties to the petitioner.

¶19

Accordingly, WPA No. 13071 of 2024 is disposed of without interfering with the impugned order whereby the movables were directed to be returned to the petitioner, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek implementation of the tribunal’s order before the tribunal itself.

¶20

Hon’ble High Court Calcutta at paragraph 16 observed that It is made clear that in the event it is found that the said order cannot be implemented for some reason or the other, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply to the tribunal for being adequately compensated in the event it is found that the bank was negligent for not returning the movables to the petitioner in time in terms of the said order.

¶21

Hon’ble High Court Calcutta further directed, If such an application is made, the tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law upon giving opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner and the bank and there will be no order as to costs.

¶22

After this order of Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in WPA/13071/2024 dated 21/05/2024, the Applicant has filed this Misc. application arising out of IA/73/2019 in SA/142/2015 which is registered as MA/17/2024. The Applicant in this application has contended that IA/73/2019 was filed for refund of value of moveable properties by the Respondent Bank. The Applicant has annexed the IA/73/2019 a list of moveable and its price as annexed as Annexure A2 claiming Rs. 60,11,500/-. the Applicant in MA/17/2024 prayed for amendment of the said claim of Rs. 60,11,500/- to Rs.16,72,762/- with interest @ 22% and one Domestic LPG Cylinder (fully filled up) and two Commercial LPG Cylinders (fully filled up).

¶23

IA/73/2019 was heard on merit on contest of the Respondent Bank and this Tribunal vide order dated 01/02/2023 allowed the IA/73/2019 with

¶24

¶25

direction to the Respondent Bank to return the moveable goods as per inventory list with proper receipt in presence of two witness and the Applicant was directed to receive the same as per inventory list.

¶26

Respondent Bank in their supplementary affidavit filed on 24/01/2020 enclosed the inventory list. The Respondent Bank has filed affidavit in opposition (supplementary affidavit) to the MA denied the pleadings in the MA and narrated entire things contending that Applicant approached the Tribunal withmalafide intention and wasted the valuable time of the Tribunal. The application of the Applicant is devoid of merit and for interest of justice the same shall be rejected. The Respondent Bank denied the claim of the Applicant of Rs.16,72,762/- with interest @ 22%.

¶27

Respondent Bank has preferred Appeal before the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta being M. A. T. 1226 of 2024 and M. A. T. 1213 of 2024 against the order of the Single Bench dated 21/05/2024 in WPA No. 12003 of 2024 and WPA No. 13071 of 2024.

¶28

MA/17/2024 was heard on 08/08/2024. On that date the Applicant was absent on call but the Ld. Advocate for the Respondents appeared and filed order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in respect of WPA No. 13071 of 2024 wherein Hon’ble High Court has set aside paragraph 16 of the impugned order of the Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta dated 21/05/2024.

¶29

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank has submitted that after giving several notices to the Applicant to receive moveable goods which were lying in the house the Applicant, he had not responded the same for which they were constrained to sell the said movables at Rs. 25,000/which is with the Bank and Bank is ready to pay the same. But the petitioner did not come to receive the money. There were three gas Cylinders which are misplaced. The Bank is ready to pay cost of three Gas Cylinders to the Applicant.

¶30

The matter was further taken up on 20/08/2024. On that day the Applicant was also absent. MA/17/2024 was heard from the Respondent

¶31

¶32

Bank. Considering the order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in respect of WPA No. 13071 of 2024 order was reserved.

¶33

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta in MAT /1213/2024 respect of WPA No. 13071 of 2024 set aside paragraph 16 but confirmed the observation of order of Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta dated 21/05/2024 that the writ petitioners are aggrieved by non-implementation of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, they are at liberty to approach the Presiding Officer of the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal for implementation of the order.

¶34

Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta has allowed the appeal on 30/07/2024 filed by the Respondent Bankin part and the observations/directions issued in paragraph 16 of the impugned order are set aside leaving it open to the writ petitioners to approach the concerned Tribunal in accordance with law.

¶35

After the order of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta dated 30/07/2024 the applicant did not file any application for implementation of the order of the Tribunal dated 01/02/2023 in IA/73/2019. Besides the Applicant has also not filed application as per order of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta dated 21/05/2024 in WPA No. 13071 of 2024.

¶36

Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta vide order dated 21/05/2024 disposed of the WPA No. 13071 of 2024 directing the applicant to approach tribunal for implementation of its order. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court from paragraph 11 to 19 except paragraph 16 are not varied by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta and Hon’ble High Court Calcutta, Division Bench set aside paragraph 16 of the Single Bench order. As per order of the Single Bench of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta and subsequently Division Bench, the Applicant is only entitled for implementation of the order dated 01/02/2023 in IA/73/2024 wherein Respondent Bank was directed to return the moveable properties as per inventory list.

¶37

¶38

Respondent Bank has given inventory list of the moveable assets and it is valued at Rs. 25,000/-. Ld. Advocate for the Respondents has contended that inspite of giving several notices to the Applicant to receive moveable goods which were lying in the house, the applicant had not responded the same for which they were constrained to sell the said movables at Rs. 25,000/- which is with the Bank and Bank is ready to pay the same alongwith cost of three Gas Cylinders to the Applicant. Applicant has not given value of the three cylinders.

¶39

The order of the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta, Division Bench directed for implementation of the order of the Tribunal, Hence, the Applicant is not entitled for any compensation. The claim of the Applicant of Rs.16,72,762/- with interest @ 22% is devoid of merit. It is ordered as follows:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

i) MA/17/2024 arising out of TSA/5/2022 is allowed in part. ii) Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/-, the price of

¶42

the moveable assets as per inventory list alongwith market price of three cylinders. As none of the parties has given value of three

¶43

cylinders, this Tribunal valued the three cylinders at Rs.15,000/-.

¶44

iii) Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/- +

¶45

Rs.15,000/- = Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant within 15 days and TheApplicant is directed to receive the same from the

¶46

Respondent Bank.

¶47

iv) After refund of Rs. 40,000/- Respondent Bank is directed to file

¶48

receipt before this Tribunal within seven days.

¶49

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶50

File is consigned to the Record Room.

¶51

¶52

(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 18^th September, 2024.

¶53

(Ambuja Mohan Das)

¶54

Presiding Officer

¶55

Order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO.TSA/05/2022 RUDRA BHATTACHARYA AND ANRVs. BANK OF INDIA
Date of Order with Signature with dateac tionOffic edate dand
the Order Signatureof Partie sne c e s s arwhe n
y

¶56

¶57

18^thSeptemb er, 2024	Noneappeared for the Sarfaesi Applicant. Ld. Advocate Mr. Ramesh Chandra Prusti Ms. Sunita Kabi appeared for the Respondents. Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 20/09/2024. The detailed order in six pages annexed separately. The gist of the order is as follows:
	O R D E R i)MA/17/2024 arising out of TSA/5/2022 is allowed in part. ii)Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/-, the price of the moveable assets as per inventory list alongwith market price of three cylinders. As none of the parties has given value of three cylinders, this Tribunal valued the three cylinders at Rs.15,000/-. iii)Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/- + 15,000/- = Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant within 15 days and the Applicant is directed to receive the same from the Respondent Bank. iv)After refund of Rs. 40,000/- Respondent Bank is directed to file receipt before this Tribunal within seven days. Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website. File is consigned to the Record Room. (Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 18^thSeptember, 2024)
	(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer

18^thSeptemb
er, 2024

Noneappeared for the Sarfaesi Applicant.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Ramesh Chandra Prusti Ms. Sunita Kabi appeared for
the Respondents.
Matter was heard in open Court on this the day of 20/09/2024.
The detailed order in six pages annexed separately. The gist of the order
is as follows:

O R D E R
i)MA/17/2024 arising out of TSA/5/2022 is allowed in part.
ii)Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/-, the price of the
moveable assets as per inventory list alongwith market price of three
cylinders. As none of the parties has given value of three cylinders, this
Tribunal valued the three cylinders at Rs.15,000/-.
iii)Respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs. 25,000/- + 15,000/- =
Rs. 40,000/- to the Applicant within 15 days and the Applicant is directed
to receive the same from the Respondent Bank.
iv)After refund of Rs. 40,000/- Respondent Bank is directed to file receipt
before this Tribunal within seven days.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
File is consigned to the Record Room.
(Dictated to P.S., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day
18^thSeptember, 2024)

(Ambuja Mohan Das)
Presiding Officer

¶58

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Khondokar Anwar Hosen

Hdfc Bank versus Prem Shanker Yadav

Bank of Baroda versus Ms National Leather Centre

Mrs Sima Mondal versus State Bank of India

Federal Bank versus Mr Kashinath Ghosh

Rudra Bhattacharya and Anr. versus Bank of India