The DRAT rejected the refund claim, holding that the deposits and auction proceeds were insufficient to cover the outstanding dues.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Allahabad Bench headed by Justice R.D. Khare (Chairperson) addressed an application and observed that the applicant was not entitled to a refund of any excess amount as the deposited sum, along with the auction proceeds of the mortgaged property, was insufficient to satisfy the total outstanding liabilities across all loan accounts, which exceeded ₹1.74 crore as per the bank's calculations. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim, emphasizing that no excess amount was available with the respondent bank for a refund.
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) addressed a miscellaneous application seeking the release of an alleged excess amount held by the respondent bank. The applicant contended that the bank had failed to refund the excess amount, as ordered in a judgment dated January 23, 2009, wherein this Tribunal had directed the bank to adjust the deposited sum of ₹14,38,176 along with interest and return any residue. The applicant further argued that despite representations and correspondence with the bank, including under the RTI Act, no details or payments were provided. The bank, in response, asserted that the total dues against the applicant exceeded the deposited amount, even after accounting for the proceeds from the auction sale of a mortgaged property. The bank presented a calculation sheet indicating outstanding dues of ₹1,74,70,747.55 as of July 31, 2022, contending that no excess amount was available for refund.
The DRAT examined the matter, noting that the appeal associated with the deposited sum related to an ex-parte decree dated January 10, 2005, which upheld the bank's claims. It found that the deposited amount did not exceed the applicant’s liability, especially when considered alongside the dues arising from three recovery certificates issued against the applicant. Moreover, the tribunal observed that the mortgaged property’s auction proceeds were insufficient to satisfy the outstanding liabilities across all three loan accounts. In light of these findings, the Tribunal concluded that no excess amount was available with the bank to be refunded and rejected the miscellaneous application. No costs were awarded, and the order was directed to be communicated to the parties and uploaded on the e-DRT portal.
Mr. Shadab Alam, Advocate represented the Appellant.
 Mr. P.K. Shrivastava, Advocate appeared for the Respondent.
Subscribers can access the Case, including Case Analysis, Ratio Decidendi, Headnotes, Briefs, Case Research, Cited Case Laws, Case Law Cross-references, and the latest updates on Statutes, Notifications, Circulars, Guidelines, Press Releases and more.
Click on the Citation/Link to access these resources
Komentar