V.V.R.Vengatasalam v. The Recovery Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.11.2021 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.24245 of 2021 V.V.R.Vengatasalam .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, 6th Floor, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. Indian Overseas Bank, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, ARM Branch, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

3. M/s.Solar Designs Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director AAK Apath Saakayam, No.1A-Wing, 3rd Floor, No.602, Parsn Manere, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 006.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to permit the petitioner to participate in the auction sale of the properties situated in Plot No.11, Municipal No.8, New No.15, Ganapathy Colony 1st Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-86 and Old Door No.19, New No.34, Chinna Thambi Mudali Street, Thiruvatteswaranpet, Chepauk, Triplicane, Chennai-5 which are subject matter in DRC No.616/2017 in O.A.No.633 of 2015 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai by adjusting the sum of Rs.60,00,000/- paid by the petitioner from the no lien account in 010901000062890 with the second respondent Bank. For the Petitioner : Mr.Prashant Rajagopal

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) The petitioner complains of the failure on the part of the respondent bank to return a sum of Rs.60 lakh that the petitioner had deposited with the bank as a part of a one-time settlement offer made by the bank to borrower Solar Designs Private Limited.

2. It appears that this petitioner was interested in purchasing one of the properties that had been furnished by the borrower by way of security to the bank. In pursuance of such interest, the petitioner put in the upfront payment of Rs.60 lakh that was required of the borrower by the bank as part of the OTS.

3. It is evident that after paying the initial amount of Rs.60 lakh, the borrower was obliged to pay a further sum of Rs.5.40 crore within 90 days of March 17, 2021 for the settlement to go through. It is also evident that the settlement offered by the bank envisaged the bank accepting a total amount of Rs.6 crore within a stipulated time upon writing off an amount of Rs.6.72 crore.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the borrower has failed to discharge the borrower's obligation to avail of the settlement. As a consequence, the petitioner's money of Rs.60 lakh has remained with the bank and the petitioner does not have any property to show against such deposit.

5. There is no merit in the petitioner's grievance and there does not appear to be any fallacy on the part of the bank in declining to release the deposit of Rs.60 lakh made by the petitioner. Indeed, the petitioner was a complete stranger to the transaction between the bank and borrower Solar Designs Private Limited. As the bank's letter of March 20, 2021 sufficiently indicates, the deposit made by the petitioner was by and on behalf of the borrower. It is true that the petitioner had made the deposit in anticipation that the borrower would discharge the borrower's obligation to make the balance payment for the properties to be freed of the mortgage and for the petitioner to be able to purchase the same, but as far as the bank is concerned, the deposit of the initial amount of Rs.60 lakh was made by the borrower, through an entity that the borrower may have identified for such purpose. In law, the bank was obliged to recognise the payment to have come only from its borrower and the bank is not concerned with the role of the petitioner herein.

6. If at all, the petitioner has to chase the borrower to obtain refund of the deposit that he made on behalf of the borrower to the borrower's bank. The petitioner has no cause of action against the bank or any right to complain that the petitioner has been unfairly treated by the bank in the present case.

7. Accordingly, W.P.No.24245 of 2021 is dismissed. Since the petition has been dealt with at the admission stage without disturbing the bank, the petitioner is spared the costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sasi To:

1. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, 6th Floor, Additional Office Building, Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai - 600 006.

2. The Assistant General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, ARM Branch, No.762, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.

W.P.No.24245 of 2021 SMI(CO) SU(22/11/2021)