Reliance Capital Limited v. Priyanka Nambiar And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 976 OF 2012 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION (L) NO. 954 OF 2012 M/s. Reliance Capital Limited.

.. Applicant Vs.

Priyanka Nambiar.

.. Respondents ...

Mr. Durgesh Singh i/b. M/s. India Law, for Applicants. Mr. Nitesh S. Nevshe, appointed by High Court Legal Aid Services for Respondent.

Ms. Priyanka Nambiar, Respondent present CORAM : A. K. MENON, J.

DATE : AUGUST 28, 2015.

P.C.:

Today when the chamber summons is called out counsel for the applicants submitted that the entire claim in the award has been satisfied and he does not wish to proceed with the execution of the award. He prays for withdrawal of the chamber summons as well as the execution application. On the application of the counsel for the applicants the chamber summons No. 976 of 2012 and Execution Application (L) No. 954 of 2012, are allowed to be withdrawn.

2.

Counsel for the respondents states that the respondent

had deposited the sum of Rs. 50,000/-, which was deposited at the time of her release and on execution of the bail bond. The respondent has deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with a Versova Police Station, on 16th June 2015, on account of bailable warrant issued in the above execution application.

3.

In view of the fact that Notice of Motion and Execution Application are now withdrawn the respondent is entitled to receive back the same amount accordingly the bond executed of 16th June 2015, is canceled and discharged. The amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be refunded to the applicant.

4.

It is also the grievance of the respondent that in the website of Credit Information Bureau of India Limited (CIBIL) under loan portfolio of Reliance Capital Limited the name of the respondent shown as a defaulter (Loan No. RLNCMUM 000111392) and subsequently after the award having been satisfied the CIBIL site continues to show that the case as "settled". It is her case that this remark need to be continue as settled and that since the award has been satisfied the remark should be shown "Closed" instead of "Settled". Subject to CIBIL guidelines in this reply the applicant is directed forthwith to take all suitable steps to

ensure that the remark against the loan amount is now changed to "Closed" instead of "Settled"

(A. K. MENON, J.)