Madras High Court
M/S.Balaji Oil Mill Industries Pvt. Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 22 January, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.No.32531 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.01.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLEMR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLEMR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMARRAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.32531 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.32887 of 2019
M/s.Balaji Oil Mill Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.39, II Main Road,
SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
Ranipet - 632 403, Rep. by its
Managing Director. ... Petitioner
-vs-
State Bank of India,
Mannady Branch,
Rep. by its Manager,
31, String Street,
Chennai 600 108. ... Respondent
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in respect of the order passed
in I.A.589/2019 in R.A.65/2014 on 13.08.2019 and to quash the same and
to direct the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to refund the pre-
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.32531 of 2019
deposit amount of Rs.16,35,625/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Thirty Five
Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five only) with interest to the
petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Swarnavel
For Respondents : Mr.Arockia Satheesh
for Mr.S.Sethuraman
*****
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Respondent bank had filed an Original Application being O.A.No.196
of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, seeking to recover
a sum of Rs.26,70,000/- with interest from petitioner. Petitioner contested
the original application on various grounds including the ground that the
claim itself was barred by limitation. Of course, petitioner also raised a
ground that the claim was neither a debt nor a due payable to the bank.
Also, the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was challenged. The
Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected the defence and allowed the original
application vide order dated 28.03.2012.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Against the said order dated 28.03.2012, petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, being
R.A.No.65 of 2014. While disposing the appeal, petitioner got part relief
inasmuch as the interest was reduced from 12% to 6%. At the time of filing
the appeal, petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.16,35,625/- being 50%
of the decretal amount and this is the subject matter of this petition.
3. The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was
dated 26.04.2017, was challenged by petitioner in this Court in
W.P.No.20925 of 2017. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide
order and judgment dated 23.01.2018. By the said judgment, the Hon'ble
High Court was pleased to hold that the original application itself was
barred by limitation and hence, the order passed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal in the original application cannot be sustained. That order has
attained finality. The bank had filed a review application, which has been
dismissed.
4. Armed with the order dated 23.01.2018 by this Court, petitioner
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
filed an application for refund of the pre-deposit amount. That application
came to be disposed of vide an order dated 13.08.2019, which is impugned
in this petition. By the said order, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has
directed that the pre-deposit amount should be paid over to the bank and
not to petitioner. Why so is not mentioned in the order. The order simply
says "... it is always mentioned that amount of pre-deposit will be received
by bank for dealing with it according to law." The relevant paragraph reads
as under:
"In so far as order dated 26.4.2017 of this Tribunal is
concerned, it appears that there is no stay of the order by
Hon'ble High Court as on today. Further, as a matter of
direction, it is always mentioned that amount of pre-deposit
will be received by Bank for dealing with it according to law. It
appears that this necessary part of the order is missing in the
order dated 26.4.2017. Hence, to make it a complete order,
direction petition IA-589/2019 stands disposed of stating that
the pre-deposit amount will have to be received by Respondent
bank from the Registry of this Tribunal and for dealing with it
according to law."
5. We would say that by passing the said order, the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal has effectively acted contrary to the findings of the High
Court, which has held that the claim of the bank was barred by limitation.
If the pre-deposit is returned to the bank, that would effectively mean that
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the claim, which has been set aside by the High Court as barred by
limitation, is partly satisfied. In our view, such an order could not have
been passed, particularly when the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal also
observes "... it appears that there is no stay of the order by Hon'ble High
Court as on today." In the circumstances, in our view, the pre-deposit ought
to have been returned to petitioner.
6. No counter has been filed. Sri.Swarnavel for petitioner states that
the amount has been returned to bank, which also Mr.Arockia Satheesh
confirms. Sri.Arockia Satheesh, however, states that he does not know
when the money was actually received by the bank. We direct the bank to
pay over the said amount of pre-deposit being Rs.16,35,625/- together with
simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount was
received by the bank till the date of payment/realisation. This amount shall
be paid over to petitioner on or before 31.01.2025.
7. The current Branch Manager shall file an affidavit with a copy to
petitioner before 30.01.2025 stating therein as to when the amount was
received and also annexe a calculation sheet detailing therein how the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
amount that is being paid over to petitioner has been arrived at.
8. Sri.Swarnavel states that the amount be credited to the following
account and the PAN number of petitioner is AAACB2534K.
Bank : Indian Bank,
Ranipet Industrial Complex Branch
Name : Balaji Oil Industries P. Ltd.
A/c.No.: 7940516344
IFSC No.: IDIB000R036
If any TDS is deducted by the bank, the amount shall be paid over to the
authorities within the time prescribed in accordance with law and the TDS
certificate shall also be issued to petitioner in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid directions, the order of the Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal dated 13.08.2019 is quashed and the petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application
stands closed.
(K.R.SHRIRAM., CJ.) (SENTHILKUMARRAMAMOORTHY, J.)
22.01.2025
Index : Yes/No
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
NC : Yes/No
sra
To:
1. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Mannady Branch,
31, String Street, Chennai 600 108.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
(sra)
22.01.2025
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
