Allowed

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta v. Capri Global Capital Ltd.

DRT7 Jan 2026MA/31/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an interimMiscellaneous Application to withdraw a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.35 Cr. held by the Registry, holding that an appellate deposit is not a secured asset and the Tribunal cannot adjust debts settled out of its own domain.

What did the court decide?

The application M.A. No. 31 of 2025 was allowed; the Registry is directed to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs. 1,35,15,191 with accrued interest to the Applicant.

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta versus Capri Global Capital Ltd. — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

07.01.2026	Exh	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.31 of 2025*	Next date
		Mr Rishabh Shah and Mr Omkar Warange, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Mutabhar Khan (through VC), and Ms Kamini Pansare i/b M/s. VM Legal, Advocates for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents.
		The Applicant has preferred this Misc. Application No.31 of 2025 for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.1,35,15,191/- deposited by the Applicant with accrued interest lying with Registry of this Tribunal. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that in this matter, the Applicant had preferred Misc. Appeal No.68 of 2019 before the Hon’ble DRAT and the Hon’ble DRAT granted stay to the Applicant on depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,35,15,191/- in the Registry of DRAT. The Hon’ble DRAT after hearing the Appeal remanded the matter to this Tribunal with the direction to dispose of the S.A. No.304 of 2019 within three months and directed that the above amount should be transfer to DRT-II, Mumbai. That amount deposited by the Applicant is still lying with the Registrar, DRT-II, Mumbai. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further submitted that the above S.A. No.304 of 2019 was dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2023. The Appeal No.28 of 2024 against that order was also dismissed and finally the Writ Petition No.10102 of 2024 was

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

dismissed on 17.10.2024. Resultantly, possession was handed over by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant seeking withdrawal of
the amount deposited with the Registry of this Tribunal.
Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that the Applicant had been in possession of the subject flat for a long period. The Applicant was under legal obligation to pay entire dues of the Societies. The Respondent No.1 deposited the total amount payable Rs.1,62,63,775/- to the Society as Applicant failed to deposit that amount. Now, the Respondent No.1, Bank is entitled to recover that paid amount from the amount deposited by the Applicant which is with the Registry of the DRT-II, Mumbai. Hence, M.A. No.31 of 2025 should be rejected.
Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties at length. Perused the record.
It is clear from the record that the Applicant had been in possession of the said flat since 2005 and as a
general rule, the Applicant is the occupant has to pay the arrears of Society for the amenities provided to the residents.
However, it is pertinent to note that the amount deposited for filing an Appeal is neither a secured asset nor a secured debt. The Tribunal is required to decide only those issues which comes within its own domain. The Tribunal does not have inherent power
and cannot travel behind the specific powers conferred upon it and cannot assume role of a court

¶4

Page 2 of 3

¶5

rst - 16	or different nature that can granted particular relief to parties before it. On this point, this Tribunal also gets guidance from the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bohi & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 341 and Axis Bank Vs. SBS Organics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr (2016) 12 SCC 18. The Respondent Bank had not taken consent of the Applicant before making payment to the Society. There is nothing on the record showing that the Society demanded the arrears from the Applicant. Hence, the Respondent Bank is not entitled to set off the amount of payment from the above pre-deposit amount. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Applicant is entitled to get the pre-deposit amount deposited with the Registry of this Tribunal. M.A. No.31 of 2025 is allowed with no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs.1,35,15,191 with accrued interest to the Applicant. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶6

Page 3 of 3

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta v. Capri Global Capital Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta v. Capri Global Capital Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus The Official Liquidator of Futura Polyesters Ltd.

Sweeta a Valiyani versus Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Dayal Impex

Chetna Properties LLP and Ors. versus Hdfc Bank

Devendra Mahadeo Shirke versus Idbi Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Avant Trading Co.