Court allowed application directing State Bank of India to refund Rs. 3.80 lakhs deposited as security under a stay order. Rejected bank's contention to deduct defense costs since the main petition was dismissed without costs.
Respondent No.1 bank directed to refund Rs. 3.80 lakhs to the applicant within 10 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE DEBTS RECOVERY, TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE r2rH DAy oF, sEprlM e{i , zozq PRESENT: sRI. GUMMAoT coprcx-ar.T HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER
MA. NO. 52 0F 2024 IN sA. NO. 439 0F 2023.
Between
Jambula Ravi, H.No.2-18,pothugal, Warangal, Telangana.
....Applicant/s
And
State Bank of India. SARB, 2nd floor, TS'RTC Commuter Amenity Center Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad-500095. And another.
...Respondent/s
MA.No.sZ/2024
This is an application filed for directing the respondent No.1 bank to release the amount of Rs.3,80,000/_ deposited by the applicant as per the orders dated 05.12.2023.
This application is resisted by the Respondents 1 and 2 by filing counter contending that the Respondent no.1 spent Rs.51,100/_ for defending the SA4_39/2023 and Appeal No.t35/2O24 before the Hon,ble DRAT and also for MA.52/2O24 and the said amount deducted from the amount deposited by the applicant.
Heard the arguments.
1 2 sEP tP1 : ri, ,.i:.... ii.,;::tr,.r4}r'::,"*^4-i-? \i-:'rgpl'tj.: -"->;::"f-'
Now the polnt for consideration is whether to release the amount deposited by the applicant or not?
A perusal of the record indicates that on 05.L2.2o23, this Tribunal granted stay in IA.No.2Bo7/2023 subject to deposit of Rs.3.80 lakhs by the petitioner in no lien account with the Respondent no.1. Subsequently after elaborate inquiry, sA.No.4312023 was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2024 without costs. so when the petitioner deposited Rs.3.B0 lakhs in no lien account, he is entitled for refund of the same. As no costs are awarded to the respondent bank in sA.439/2023, now the respondent bank cannot contend that it is entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.51,100/-.
Hence in the circumstances state above, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get refund of Rs.3.B0 lakhs and hence the respondent bank is directed to refund the said amount of Rs.3.B0 lakhs to the petitioner within 10 days from the date of this order.
In the result, the petition MA.No.5212024 is allowed directing the Respondent No.1 bank to refund Rs.3.B0 lakhs to the petitioner within 10 days from the date of this order.
sd/-
Presiding Officer
,4:e&
',9\ - ffi
.,'* &B
,,-.
,i; ,7+ 12 SEp M4 h<*
:!#. .'
^J
Wutq"$Y
d;"ffiru
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bank can deduct costs for defending the earlier petition when no costs were awarded against the applicant.
Whether the applicant is entitled to the refund of the deposited security amount since the main petition was dismissed without costs.
Jambula Ravi
State Bank of India
Gummaiah
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
