The High Court, via Writ Petition, directed the respondent banks and DRAT to refund Rs.40 lakhs pre-deposit made by the petitioner to the DRAT, reasoning the money belonged to the petitioner, despite the DRAT appeal being pending on merits.
The respondent Bank is directed to refund Rs.40,00,000 to the petitioner within one week.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2019 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P.No.27546 of 2019
Nainar K. Makdoom ..Petitioner
Versus
4th Floor, Indian Bank Circle Office, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 9.8.2019 in I.A.No.651/2019 in M.A.(S.A.) No.54/2018 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and quash the same and consequently direct the DRAT/Respondent Bank to refund a sum of Rs.40 lakhs deposited by the Petitioner in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in M.A.S.A.No.54/2018 on the file of DRAT Chennai.
For petitioner : Mr.R.R.Pradeep for Mr.A.Joseph Dorairaj
For Respondent : Ms.S.R.Sumathy for Mr.T.Ramasamy
ORDER
(Order of the court was made by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, J.)
The present Petition has been filed by the Borrower Mr.Nainar K.Makidoom seeking a mandamus direction to the DRAT, Chennai to refund the pre-deposit of Rs.40,00,000/- made by the Petitioner.
to the Respondent State Bank of India. Since the said money in question absolutely belongs to the Petitioner as it was deposited with the learned DRAT, Chennai as a condition to maintain the appeal under Section 18 of the Act, the RespondentBank, obviously, does not have any right to retain the money. Even though the S.A. filed by the Petitioner is pending before the learned DRAT, in the circumstances, we direct the Respondent-Bank to make over the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the Petitioner/Borrower forthwith, within one week from today.
ssk
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
4th Floor, Indian Bank Circle Office, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008.
+2cc to Mr.T.Ramasamy, Advocate, SR.No.95404
+1cc to Mr.A.Joseph Dorairaj, Advocate, SR.No.95826
W.P.No.27546 of 2019
Kak(19/11/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents are liable to refund the pre-deposit amount of Rs.40 lakhs deposited in the DRAT to the petitioner.
Whether the transfer of pre-deposit money to the respondent bank deprives the petitioner of his right to the funds pending the outcome of the appeal.
Whether the writ petition can be disposed of summarily directing refund of deposit without deciding the merits of the underlying debt recovery appeal.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nainar K. Makdoom
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
State Bank of India, Tirunelveli Branch
Vineet Kothari
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
