w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



United Bank of India V/S Ashok Kumar Kalra and Others.


Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- ASHOK AND CO INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15549AS1992PTC003756

Company & Directors' Information:- T S ASHOK & CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2011PTC012981

Company & Directors' Information:- ASHOK AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC024382

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED BANK LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U93090TN1937PLC003162

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    OA No. 20/2010

    Decided On, 10 February 2020

    At, Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DHARMINDER SINGH
    By, (PRESIDING OFFICER)

   



Judgment Text


1. This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 11.01.2010, through Sh. Naresh Jain, Senior Manager/Principal Officer & duly authorized person of the applicant bank; under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants no. 1, 3 & 4 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,66,318/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Eighteen only) and against the defendant no. 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- (Rupees One Lac and Seventy Thousand only), together with pendente lite and future interest presently at 15.50% p.a. with monthly rests besides 2% p.a. towards penal interest, till the date of actual and final realization of this OA, with all costs and charges along with other relief(s).

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Shiva Gases, a sole proprietorship concern through its Proprietor Sh. Ashok Kumar Kalra, i.e. defendant no. 1, is engaged in the business of distribution of gas cylinders manufactured by defendant no. 3. Further, it is stated that defendant no 2 is wife of defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3, a private limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of gas cylinders and defendant no. 4 is bankers of defendant no. 3 and is responsible for wrongly crediting the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac in the account of defendant no. 3, without seeking any confirmation from the applicant bank and wrongly assuming the said Cheque had been cleared by the applicant bank, in the absence of any information. Defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant no. 1 in whose Saving Bank Account Rs. 1,70,000/- being part of the proceedings from the FDRs prematurely encashed by the defendant no. 1 malafidely were transferred out of which two FDR bearing no. 1139100196994 for Rs. 1.0 lac dated 13.03.2009 and No. 1139100197007 for Rs. 50,000/- dated 13.03.2009 were created.

3. On the request of defendant no. 1, the applicant bank granted a Cash-Credit Facility of Rs. 1.0 lac to defendant no. 1 which was subsequently enhanced/re-phased from time to time and was lastly enhanced to Rs. 6.0 lac on 23.07.2005. The defendant no. 1 signed and executed requisite documents in favour of the applicant bank from time to time and lastly on 14.11.2008. Defendant no. 1 duly availed the aforesaid Cash Credit facility. Defendant no. 1 was maintaining a Cash Credit Account, Current Account and Saving Bank Account with the applicant bank and defendant no. 2 was maintaining a Saving Bank Account with the applicant bank. In consideration to the grant of the aforesaid credit facilities to defendant no. 1 by the applicant bank, defendant no. 1 hypothecated all their stocks of cylinders whether raw or in process or in manufacture and all products goods and movable property of any kind etc. etc. lying at their works/factory at FA-369, Mansarovar Garden, New Delhi - 110 015; A-22, Hari Nagar, New Delhi - 110 064 and at A-195, Sudershan Park, New Delhi - 110 018 and/or at any other place in favour of the applicant bank.

4. The defendant no. 1, in terms of commercial arrangement/agreement with defendant no. 3, issued a Cheque bearing no. 03579 dated 26.08.2008 for a sum of Rs. 20.0 lac (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Cheque') in favour of defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 3 deposited the said Cheque with defendant no. 4 for realization. The said Cheque was forwarded by defendant no. 4 to applicant bank for clearance through the CTS clearing system, however, it was not cleared for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement" and the same was not returned by the applicant bank to defendant no. 4. Moreover, the applicant bank debited defendant no. 1's account with return charges for the dishonor of the said Cheque and said fact had also been intimated to defendant no. 1 vide his Statement of Account for the month of August 2008.

5. It is further stated that due to technical snag/error in the CTS clearing system though which only an image of the Cheque drawn by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 was sent to the applicant bank, the refusal/return of the said Cheque and the reasons thereof could not reach defendant no. 4. In absence of any information, defendant no. 4 without seeking any confirmation from the applicant bank, wrongly assumed that the Cheque has been cleared by the applicant bank, and wrongly credited the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac in the account of defendant no. 3.

6. The defendant no. 1, on becoming aware that in spite of the insufficient funds in their account, the said Cheque issued by him in favour of defendant no. 3 had been wrongly shown as cleared and the amount had been wrongly credited due to a mistake into the account of defendant no. 3, immediately surrendered the Cash Credit Limit and got the LIC policies and FDR's which he had deposited with the applicant bank as securities even though the same had not matured. Further, defendant no. 1 transferred the amount of FDR to his saving bank account and thereafter from the said saving bank account transferred a part amount of Rs. 1.70 lac which was subsequently transferred to the account of defendant no. 2. It is also pertinent to mention that new FDR's were made by the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 from the abovesaid amount in their personal names. The two FDRs for Rs. 1.0 lac and Rs. 50,000/-, both dated 13.03.2009 were made in the name of defendant no. 2 and three FDRs for Rs. 1.0 lac dated 18.02.2009, Rs. 1.0 lac dated 18.02.2009 and Rs. 50,000/- dated 12.03.2009 were made in the name of defendant no. 1.

7. It is stated in the OA that on reconciliation of the clearing system, the applicant bank found out that due to a technical snag/error in the CTS clearing system, the information of rejection/return of the said Cheque had not reached defendant no. 4 and that defendant no. 4 without seeking any confirmation from the applicant bank, had wrongly assumed that the said Cheque had been cleared by the applicant bank and wrongly credited the sum of Rs. 20.0 lac to the account of defendant no. 3. The applicant bank, on becoming aware that due to the said technical snag/error the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac had been wrongly credited to the account of defendant no. 3, immediately made several request to the defendants, calling upon them to refund/repay the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac to the applicant bank.

8. It is stated in the OA that the applicant bank, vide letter dated 15.06.2009, informed defendant no. 1 that the said Cheque had been returned/dishonoured for reason "exceeds Arrangement", but due to a technical snag/system error the said information about returning of the Cheque could not reach the system of defendant no. 4 and that defendant no. 4 had unauthorizedly released the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac to defendant no. 3, and defendant no. 1 was requested to repay/refund the said amount to the applicant bank. The applicant bank, vide letter dated 19.05.2009, informed defendant no. 3 that the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac had been wrongly credited to their account and that they should refund/return the same to the applicant bank, however, a totally frivolous reply dated 01.06.2009 of defendant no. 3 was received by the applicant bank. Further, applicant bank, vide letter dated 26.05.2009, informed defendant no. 4 also that the said Cheque of defendant no. 1 had been returned/dishonoured with by the applicant bank, but due a technical snag/error in the CTS clearing system, the information had not reached defendant no. 4 and the defendant no. 4 credited a sum of Rs. 20.0 lac to the account of defendant no. 3, accordingly, the defendant no. 4 was requested to repay/refund the said amount of Rs. 20.0 lac to the applicant bank. However, the defendants deliberately and malafide failed to repay/refund the said amount of Rs. 20.0 lac, which had been wrongly credited to defendant no. 3's account due to a technical snag/error/mistake. Hence, the applicant bank was forced to send a Legal Demand Notice dated 07.11.2009 to the defendants calling upon them to pay the sum of Rs. 20.0 lac besides interest on the said amount from 01.09.2008 onwards @15.50% pa. with monthly rests, within 7 of receipt of the said notice, but despite receipt of same, the defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding amount and totally false and frivolous replies dated 12.11.2009, 17.11.2009 and 20.11.2009 were received from defendants no. 1 & 2, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 respectively.

9. It is stated in the OA that any money which has been paid on account of a mistake is the sole property of the applicant bank. Further, Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that a person to whom money has been paid by mistake or by coercion must repay or return it. In the present circumstances, since the money has been paid to defendant no. 3 on account of the error in the CTS clearing system, defendants no. 1, 3 & 4 are, therefore, jointly and severally liable to repay/return to the applicant bank the sum of Rs. 20.0 lac besides interest from 01.09.2008 onwards @15.50% p.a. with monthly rests. Moreover, defendant no 2, wife of defendant no. 1, in whose Saving Bank Account Rs. 1.70 lac being part of the proceeds from the FDRs prematurely encashed by defendant no. 1 malafidely were transferred out of which two FDRs for Rs. 1.0 lac and Rs. 50,000/-, both dated 13.03.2009, were created and as such the liability of defendant no. 2 is restricted to Rs. 1.70 lac together with interest @15.50% p.a. with monthly rests.

10. As per books of account maintained by applicant bank in their regular course of business, the following amount are due and payable by the defendants no. 1, 3 & 4 to the applicant bank besides accrued interest @ 15.5% from 01.09.2008 till 10.01.2020 i.e. Rs. 24,66,318/- and the liability of defendant no. 2 is restricted to Rs. 1,70,000/- together with interest @15.50% p.a. with monthly rests. Since the defendants no. 1 to 4 failed to pay the amount due to the applicant bank, hence, the applicant bank was left with no option but to file the present OA. Accordingly, it prayed that the OA be allowed for the abovesaid amounts alongwith interest, as stated above.

11. Notices were issued to the defendant no. 1 to 4, they put appearance through counsels and filed their respective written statements. So far as defendants no. 1 & 2 are concerned, they filed a common WS, whereas, the defendants no. 3 & 4 filed their separate WS(s).

12. The defendants no. 1 & 2, in their common WS, have raised preliminary objections viz. that the answering defendants have no relation with the defendant no. 4, but the bank tried to mislead and misappropriate the entire funds of the answering defendant by way of this petition; that the amount paid is totally preplanned manner, by the petitioner by verifying desk to desk stage; that there is no coercion from any corner, if any, hence Section 72 is not applicable at this stage. The present petition is based on false and flimsy ground in collusion with the defendants no. 3 & 4, and intentionally and deliberately trying to misappropriate the entire funds of the answering defendants. On merits also, the defendants no. 1 & 2 have raised various objections such as that cheque-in-question is already rejected/returned, hence, there is no liability on the part of the answering defendants; that the answering defendants have no concern about the crediting the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac, which is denied for want of knowledge. It is denied by the answering defendants that the answering defendant no. 1, on becoming aware that in spite of insufficient funds in their account, the said cheque issued by him in favour of defendant no. 3 had been wrongly shown as cleared or the amount had been wrongly credited due to a mistake into the account of defendant no. 3 with malafide intention or ulterior motive, immediately surrendered the cash credit limit and got the LIC Policies and FDRs released. It is further denied that the answering defendant no. 1 thereafter encashed the FDRs which he had deposited with the applicant bank as securities even though the same had not matured and transferred the amount of FDR to his saving bank account or thereafter from the said saving bank account transferred a part amount of Rs. 1.70 lac to the account of defendant no. 2. It is stated in the WS that the answering defendants are maintaining their business transaction as per their regular requirements of business and take necessary steps as per their desire and requirement but, the applicant bank try to take benefit of their favour for adopting the dual policy and try to coverup their deficiency of their services. It is further stated that the answering defendants have no liability for any amount, as calculated by the bank for recovery. Accordingly, it has been prayed to dismiss the present OA with costs.

13. So far as defendant no. 3 is concerned, in the amended WS, it is stated the present OA filed by the applicant bank is not maintainable as defendant no. 3 is neither a borrower nor a guarantor or mortgaged with the applicant bank and the OA under Section 19 of RDDB&FI 1993 can only be filed by a bank and FI for the purpose of recovery of any debt due from its borrowers. It is also stated that the amount of Cheque credited in the account of defendant no. 3 by defendant no. 4 does not fall within the definition of 'debt' and hence, the applicant bank cannot implead the answering defendant no. 3 for the purpose of its alleged recovery of a sum of Rs. 24,66,318/-. It is further stated that for the recovery of the alleged sum of Rs. 20.0 lac, the applicant bank can sue either defendants no. 1 & 2, who are the borrowers to the applicant bank or at the best defendant no. 4 who has credited the amount of said Cheque dated 26.08.2008 in the account of defendant no. 3. However, the applicant bank does not have any cause of action with the answering defendant no. 3 as the applicant bank does not have any privity of contract with the answering defendant. It is also stated in the WS that the applicant bank has failed to provide any copy of returned memo, which is being issued by each and every bank to the drawee of the cheques as per the guidelines laid down by the RBI, which clearly shows that the said Cheque dated 26.08.2008 was never dishonoured by the applicant bank and filing of present OA for recovery of alleged sum of Rs. 20.0 lac from the answering defendant no. 3 is merely an afterthought on the part of the applicant bank.

14. Further, it is also submitted that defendant no. 3 is a private company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various gases including oxygen, DA, Nitrogen etc. and the said gases are sold/supplied by defendant no. 3 to it customers in the returnable cylinders. Defendant no. 1, who is proprietor of M/s. Shiva Gases, was appointed by the defendant no. 3 as its agent for the purpose of sale of the gases manufactured by defendant no. 3 and an agreement dated 26.05.2007 was arrived at between defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 1 in this regard. The defendant no. 1 was allotted by the answering defendant 400 nos. of oxygen/Nitrogen/DA cylinders, which were to be returned well in time by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 3, failing which, the defendant no. 1 was bound to pay to the answering defendant rent as per the stipulate rate per cylinder every month and on his failure to do so, the defendant no. 1 was to be held liable for payment of the price of the cylinder quantified @ Rs. 6000/- per cylinder.

15. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 was quite erratic in making payment to defendant no. 3 of the price of the gases purchased by him from the answering defendant. Defendant no. 1 failed to pay the rental dues of the aforesaid cylinders and also did not return the cylinders to defendant no. 3 despite repeated requests and reminders. On 26.08.2008, a settlement was arrived at between the answering defendant and defendant no. 1 and a cheque No. 035970 dated 26.08.2008 for a sum of Rs. 20.0 lac was issued to the answering defendant towards the settlement of the dues/account of defendant no. 1 qua the rentals and part payment of the cylinders. The said cheque of Rs. 20.0 lac was deposited by the answering defendant no. 3 with its banker i.e. defendant no. 4. The defendant no. 4 lawfully credited the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac i.e. the amount of Cheque No. 035970 in the bank account of defendant no. 3 as the aforesaid cheque was never refused to be honoured by the applicant/Union Bank of India. Even now, after a period of 13-months approx. the applicant bank has failed to produce on the court record any copy of the returned memo of the aforesaid cheque, which may prove the alleged contentions of the applicant bank that the said cheque was not honoured by it due to the reason 'Exceeds Arrangement'.

16. It is further submitted that till date defendant no. 4 has not informed the answering defendant no. 3 about any wrongful credit in the statement of account of defendant no. 3, being maintained with defendant no. 4 in the ordinary course of business and in fact, applicant bank is a stranger in the relationship between the defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4, therefore, the applicant bank does not have any cause of action against the answering defendant. Further the applicant bank has failed to produce any such agreement, arrived at between the applicant bank and the answering defendant no. 3, which gives authority to the applicant bank to recover interests @15.50% p.a. with monthly rests besides 2% p.a. towards penal interest on the alleged amount of Rs. 24,66,318/-. In the light of above, it has been prayed to dismiss the present OA qua answering defendant no. 3.

17. So far as, the defendant no. 4/Yes Bank is concerned, in its written statement, it raised certain objections stating that in view of Section 17 of the RDDB&FI Act, this Tribunal do not have any jurisdiction to try the present OA and further, in the present case amount claimed by the petitioner does not comes within the definition of 'Debt'. It is also stated that the defendant no. 4 has no liability to repay the aforesaid amount in view of Section 131 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 issued the said Cheque dated 26.08.2008 for Rs. 20.0 lac in favour of defendant no. 3 and said cheque has been deposited by defendant no. 3 with defendant no. 4 for realization. Said Cheque was forwarded by defendant no. 4 to the applicant bank for clearance through clearing system, however, the said Cheque was not cleared for reasons Exceeds Arrangement and same was retuned back to defendant no. 4 and due to technical snag/error in the CTS system through which only a image of the cheque drawn by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 was sent to the applicant bank, the return/real of the said cheque and the reasons thereof could not reach. Hence, defendant no. 4, in the absence of information assumed that the said cheque had been cleared by the applicant bank and credited the amount of Rs. 20.0 lac. It is stated by defendant no. 4 that defendant no. 4 has acted diligently and adhered with the banking guidelines as issued from time to time and defendant no. 4 released the payment to the account of defendant no. 3 when said cheque has been cleared by the applicant bank and no instructions with regard to returning or dishonouring of the cheque were issued and after several days applicant bank raised this issue and in present case, applicant bank acted negligently and committed serious lapses at their own end. Thus the present dispute is between defendant no. 1 and applicant and answering defendant has nothing to do with the said transaction and no cause of action has arisen, either wholly or partly, against the answering defendant. Accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the present OA with costs.

18. To prove its case, the applicant bank leads its evidence by filling the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Jain, Senior Manager and Principal Officer, of applicant bank, who reiterated the same facts as pleaded and proved certain documents which includes Power of Attorney dated 18.11.2002 of applicant bank as Ex. AW 1/1, Sanction Letter dated 23.07.2005 as Ex. AW 1/2; letter dated 19.05.2009 issued by applicant bank to defendant no. 3 as Ex. AW 1/3; reply dated 01.06.2009 of defendant no. 3 to applicant bank as Ex. AW 1/4; letter dated 27.05.2006 sent by applicant bank to defendant no. 4 as Ex. AW 1/5; letter dated 15.06.2009 issued by applicant bank to defendant no. 1 as Ex. AW 1/6; Legal Demand Notice dated 07.11.2009 issued by applicant bank to defendants no. 1 to 4 as Ex. AW 1/7; replies dated 12.11.2009, 17.11.2009 and 20.11.2009 of defendants no. 1 & 2, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 4 respectively as Ex. AW 1/8 to Ex. AW 1/10; Statement of Accounts duly certified under the Bankers Books of Evidence Act in respect of the Cash Credit Account of defendant no. 1, Current Account of defendant no. 1, Saving Bank Account of defendant no. 1, Saving Bank Account of defendant no. 2, calculation sheet of the accrued interest on the outstanding amount and the statement showing the total outstanding amount as Ex. AW 1/11 to Ex. AW 1/16.

19. The defendants no. 1 & 2 are concerned, they have led their evidence by filing their respective affidavits, however, no documents has been filed in support of their evidence.

20. Similarly, the defendant no. 3 also led its evidence by way of filing affidavit of Sh. S.C. Rohtagi, authorized signatory of defendant no. 3, who has proved certain documents viz. true copy of agreement dated 26.05.2007 arrived at between defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 3 as Ex. DW-1/1; true copy of reply dated 17.11.2009 of defendant no. 3 to legal notice dated 07.11.2009 of applicant bank as Ex. DW-1/2 and true copy of reply dated 01.06.2009 of defendant no. 3 to letter dated 19.05.2009 of applicant bank as Ex. DW-1/3.

21. So far as, the defendant no. 4 is concerned, in order to prove its case, the defendant no. 4 bank/Yes Bank also leads its evidence by filling of Mr. Sanju Kumar, Vice President (Legal), of defendant no. 4 who has exhibited various documents, which includes Power of Attorney dated 07.02.2012 of defendant no. 4 as Ex.-D 4/1 and letter dated 27.05.2009 of applicant bank as Ex.-D 4/2.

22. Applicant bank as well as defendant no. 4/Yes Bank have filed their respective written submissions.

23. Heard and record has been thoroughly perused. In the present matter, Ld. counsel for applicant bank has contended that the defendant no. 4 i.e. Yes Bank had collected the Cheque, which was presented by defendant no. 3 on 26.08.2008, accordingly, the same was sent to the United Bank of India i.e. applicant bank herein on 29.08.2008, but due to certain technical defects in Cheque Truncation System, the clearance could not be made and by that time, the amount of Cheque i.e. Rs. 20.0 lac has been transferred to the account of defendant no. 3 which was immediately withdrawn by defendant no. 3. Though, in the present matter, defendants no. 1 & 2 were holding their accounts with the applicant bank and defendant no. 1 gave a Cheque of Rs. 20.0 lac to defendant no. 3 knowingly that said amount is not in his account, therefore, there was active connivance between the defendants, hence, the amount has been illegally withdrawn by defendant no. 3 in-connivance with defendants no. 1 & 4 in spite of the fact that on behalf of applicant bank, the message was conveyed to defendant no. 4 immediately that the amount has been wrongly debited as there were insufficient funds in the account of defendant no. 1. Therefore, the applicant bank is entitled to the said amount.

24. Further, it is also argued that present case falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal because of the reason that the amount which has been withdrawn illegally and malafidely by the defendant no. 3, therefore, applicant herein falls in the category of 'Debt'. Hence, the defendants have no right to say at this stage that the present OA is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Ld. counsel for applicant bank also argued that in the present matter, on 19.05.2009, the Recall Notice was issued to defendant no. 3 as well, but no such response has come forward on behalf of defendant no. 3 and even no action/measure, civil or criminal, was taken by the defendant no. 3 against defendant no. 1 and 2 for committing fraud or for recovery of the dues. Though, it is being alleged that a sum of Rs. 64.0 lac were due, hence, after issuance of Recall Notice, the defendant no. 3 was required to file Civil Suit or criminal action against defendants no. 1 & 2, therefore, defendant no. 3, after receipt of the notice dated 19.05.2009, cannot escape from the liability as 'unjust enrichment' cannot be there. Ld. counsel for applicant bank has also relied upon a judgement passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 1803/2015, CM. No. 3210/2015 (stay) & C.M. No. 3211/2015 (Exemption) in the case titled as M/s. Panjwani Packaging Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Allahabad Bank.

25. Further, it is also argued on behalf of applicant bank that the Cash Credit Facility was sanctioned in favour of defendant no. 1 and during the period of dishonouring of the Cheque as well as issuance of legal demand notice to defendants no. 1 to 4, the defendant no. 1 got encashed the FDRs vide which the amount was deposited as a security, however, illegally and malafidely, some of the amount was got transferred in the account of defendant no. 2 who is none else but wife of defendant no. 1 and later on said amount was also withdrawn from the account of defendant no. 2 which shows active connivance between defendants no. 1 & 2, therefore, defendant no. 2 is also liable along with rest of the defendants to the extent of Rs. 1.70 lac.

26. In the light of above, Ld. counsel for applicant bank has prayed for allowing present OA.

27. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 3, vehemently argued that there was a commercial transaction between defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 1 for supplying the oxygen cylinders and the costs of per cylinder was Rs. 6000/- and defendant no. 1 was allotted 400 cylinders. Since, defendant no. 1 failed to pay the rental dues of the aforesaid cycles and also did not return the cylinders to defendant no. 3, therefore, a sum of Rs. 64.0 lac were due against defendant no. 1, accordingly, the defendant no. 1 had issued a Cheque of Rs. 20.0 lac in favour of defendant no. 3, which was presented and encashed, therefore, once the liability of defendant no. 1 was there to repay the same, accordingly, it was paid by the applicant bank as well as Yes Bank, therefore, for the same purpose, if any default is there, that is on the part of the applicant bank and the defendant no. 3 cannot be made liable. Hence, defendant no. 3 is not liable for repayment of the same as it was pertaining to a commercial transaction entered into between the defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 1, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of present OA against defendant no. 3.

28. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 4/Yes Bank stressed upon that there was default on the part of the United Bank of India at the time of clearance of the Cheque, which was presented by defendant no. 3 and through Cheque Truncation System, the image of the Cheque was duly sent to United Bank of India and it was the responsibility of the United Bank of India to convey the same immediately to defendant no. 4 Bank, but it was not so conveyed that there were insufficient funds in the account of the defendant no. 1 till 29.08.2009 and by that time the amount of Cheque was paid to defendant no. 3 and said transaction was carried by defendant no. 4. Hence, for the negligence, if any, on the part of applicant bank itself was there, and for the same purpose, the defendant no. 4 cannot be held responsible or liable. Accordingly, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 4 also prayed for dismissal of OA against defendant no. 4.

29. From the abovesaid arguments and the pleading of the respective parties, the following point of determination has arisen before this Tribunal which is as under:-

Issue No. I: Whether the claim of the applicant bank falls within the definition of debts?

Issue No. II: Whether this Tribunal has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Original Application?

Issue No. III: Whether the defendants no. 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay any amount to the applicant bank or not?

Issue No. IV : Interest awarded?

Issue No. V : Relief?

ISSUE No. I & II:

30. Both these issues are co-related. Accordingly, the same are being discussed together. Before embarking upon the detailed discussions, it would be appropriate to go through the section 2(G) of RDBBI Act which is as under:

"debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a band or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application;"
31. Apparently, the Act of 1993, was enacted primarily for the reasons that, the Banks and financial institutions should be able to recover their dues without unnecessary delay, so as to avoid any adverse consequences in relation to the public funds. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act clearly state that Banks and financial institutions at present, experience considerable difficulties in recovering loans and enforcements of securities charged with them. The existing procedure for recovery of dues of the Bank and the financial institutions block significant portion of their funds in un-productive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time. The Act provided for the establishment of Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals and modes for expeditious recovery of dues to the Banks and financial institutions in a speedy manner.

32. In this background, it is apparent from the language of Section 2(g) of the Recovery Act. The plain reading of the Section suggests that legislature has used a general expression in contra distinction to specific, restricted or limited expression. This obviously means that, the legislature intended to give wider meaning to the provisions. Larger area of jurisdiction was intended to be covered under this provision so as to ensure attainment of the legislative object, i.e. expeditious recovery and providing provisions for taking such measures which would prevent the wastage of securities available with the banks and financial institutions.

33. Further, some of the general expressions used by the framers of law in this provision:

a) any liability;

b) claim as due from any person;

c) during the course of any business activity undertaken by the Bank;

d) where secured or unsecured;

e) and lastly legally recoverable.

34. All the above expressions used in the definition clause clearly suggest that, expression 'debt' has to be given general and wider meaning, just to illustrate, the word 'any liability' as opposed to the word 'determined liability' or 'definite liability' or "any person' in contrast to 'from the debtor'. The expression "any person' shows that the framers do not wish to restrict the same in its ambit or application. The legislature has not intended to restrict to the relationship of a creditor or debtor alone. General terms, therefore, have been used by the legislature to give the provision a wider and liberal meaning. These are generic or general terms. Therefore, it will be difficult for the Court, even on cumulative reading of the provision, to hold that the expression should be given a narrower or restricted meaning. What will be more in consonance with the purpose and object of the Act is to give this expression a general meaning on its plain language rather than apply unnecessary emphasis or narrow the scope and interpretation of these provisions, as they are likely to frustrate the very object of the Act.

35. In the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal & Ors. : (2004) 5 SCC 155, The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was concerned with the question of payment of taxes in relation to the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. The Court while interpreting the scope of the entries in the legislative lists held that, they should be construed widely and general words used therein must comprehend ancillary or subsidiary matters relating to Schedule VII, Articles 245 and the Court held as under:-

"In interpreting the scope of various entries in the legislative lists in the Seventh Schedule, widest-possible amplitude must be given to the words used and each general word must be held to extend to ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly be said to be comprehended in it The entries should, thus be given a broad and comprehensive interpretation. In order to see whether a particular legislative provision falls within the jurisdiction of the legislature which has passed it, the Court must consider what constitutes in pith and substance the true subject-matter of the legislation and whether such subject-matter is covered by the topics enumerated in the legislative list pertaining to that legislature."
36. Again in the of case of Raman Lal Bhailal Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat : (2008) 5 SCC 449. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was dealing with the word 'person' appearing in the provisions of Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960. The expression 'person' was defined with the inclusive definition that a person includes a joint family. The Court held that, where the definition is inclusively defining the word, there, the legislative intention is clear that it wishes to enlarge the meaning of the word used in the statute and that such word must be given comprehensive meaning. In law, the word 'person' was stated to be having a slightly different connotation and refers to any entity that is recognized by law as having rights and duties of human beings.

37. In the case of Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. v. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. & Ors. : (2007) 6 SCC 236. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, took the view that, the elementary rule of interpretation of statute is that the words used must be given their plain grammatical meaning, therefore, the Court cannot add something which the legislature has not provided for. Similar view was also expressed by The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Ors. : (2003) 2 SCC 455, that the Court cannot write anything into the statutory provisions which are plain and unambiguous. A Statute is an edict of the legislature. The language employed in a statute is determinative factor of legislative intent. The first and the primary rule of construction is that, the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. The question is not what may be supposed and has been intended but what has been said.

38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar & Ors. v. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar : AIR 1968 SC 1047, explained the expression 'debt' as defined in the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938. The Court held that the definition appearing in Section 3 (iii) of the Act, despite the fact that it specifically states that 'debt' would not include rent as defined in clause (iv), or 'Kanartham', as defined in Section 3 (1)(1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, held that the definition is still of a very wide magnitude and would include 'any liability' due from an agriculturists with the specified expressions. The Court held as under:

"'Debt' has been defined in Sec. 3 (1) of the Act as meaning "any liability" in Cash or kind, whether secured or unsecured, due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise, but does not include rent as defined in Clause (iv), or 'Kanartham' as defined in Section 3(1) (1) of the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929."
39. In the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry [: (1974) 2 SCC 231], The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, quoted as under:

"The classical definition of 'debt', is to be found in Webb v. Stenton where Lindley, L.J. said: "... a debt is a sum of money which is now payable or will become payable in the future by reason of a present obligation". There must be debitum in praesenti; solvendum may be in praesenti or in future - that is immaterial. There must be an existing obligation to pay a sum of money now or in future."
40. Further, in another case titled as State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Ballabh Das & Co. & Ors. [: (1999) 7 SCC 539], The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, was concerned with the un-amended provisions of Section 2(g) of the Recovery Act. The Court while setting aside the order of the High Court, while dealing with the word 'debt' followed by the words 'alleged as due', held as under:-

"According to the definition, the term 'debt' means liability which is alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions. It should have arisen during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force. The liability to be discharged may be in cash or otherwise. It would be immaterial whether the liability is secured or unsecured or whether it is payable under a decree or an order of any civil court or otherwise. However, it should be subsisting and legally recoverable on the date on which proceedings are initiated for recovering the same."
41. The Act and the relevant provisions will have to be construed bearing in mind the objects for which Parliament passed the enactment. The prime object of the enactment appears to be provide for the establishment of tribunals for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

42. The similar proposition has been elaborately discussed and laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in citation "Eureka Forbes Limited vs Allahabad Bank & Ors" : 2010 (6) SCC 193."

43. Further, The Hon'ble Apex Court, had the occasion to examine the width and scope of the expression "debt", as defined in RDDBFI Act, albeit in a slightly different fact-situation, in the case of M/s. Panjwani Packaging Ltd. & Ors. v. Allahabad Bank, writ petition (civil) 1803/2015 (decided on 25.02.2015), wherein it was held as under:-

"14. ... the money credited by the bank in the account of a customer by mistake, or under coercion, when retained by the customer or wrongfully withdrawn or refused to be returned, when demanded, amounts to unjust enrichment The fact as to whether the payment was made voluntarily or otherwise is of no consequence so long as the payment was made mistakenly (or pursuant to coercion) and was not due. The mistake may have occurred inadvertently or be the result of act of commission or omission of a third person (including an employee, agent etc.) actuated by intent to deceive or defraud. By virtue of Section 72 of the Contract Act, the customer receiving the money in such facts and circumstances is bound to repay or return it. On account of such obligation to repay or return the money received by mistake, or under coercion, such amount is rendered due from the customer to the bank and thus in the nature of a liability constituting a "debt" which the bank may lawfully claim by way of application to the DRT under the provisions of RDDBFI Act, subject, of course, to all just exceptions including the bar of limitation."
44. From the abovesaid discussion, it is apparent that the expression "debt" as used in RDDBFI Act would, thus, include liability arising out of fraudulent transaction causing wrongful loss to a bank or financial institution. It is not correct to contend that if a cause is founded on the allegation that a debt or liability has been incurred due to fraud or by way of deceit, the recovery proceedings cannot be brought to a forum in the nature of DRT under RDDBFI Act. The amounts represented by the aforementioned transactions, thus, relate to a liability arising out of the business activity undertaken by the bank, one which is "legally recoverable" by it. The claim of banks before DRT is, thus, for recovery of a "debt" and maintainable under Section 19 of RDDBFI Act.

45. On the plain analysis of the above stated judgment of this Court, it is clear that the word 'debt' under Section 2 (g) of the Recovery Act is incapable of being given a restricted or narrow meaning. The legislature has used general terms which must be given appropriate plain and simple meaning. There is no occasion for the Court to restrict the meaning of the word 'any liability', 'any person' and particularly the words 'in cash or otherwise'. Under Section 2 (g), a claim has to be raised by the Bank against any person which is due to Bank on account of/in the course of any business activity undertaken by the Bank.

46. In the present case in hand, apparently, the amount was withdrawn on the basis of the cheque by defendant no. 3, which is alleged to have been issued by defendant no. 1, inspite of the fact that there were insufficient funds in the account of defendant no. 1 who was holding the account with the applicant bank, therefore, certainly the said account was operated and the amount has been withdrawn in due course of banking business activities of the applicant bank and the defendant no. 4/Yes Bank, therefore, certainly, the present amount comes under the purview of Debt under Section 2(g) of the Act as the said word 'Debt' is incapable of being given restricted or narrow meaning.

47. In the case in hand, there cannot be any dispute that the expression "debt" has to be given the widest amplitude to mean any liability which is alleged as due from any person by a bank during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank either in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, whether payable under a decree or order of any court or otherwise and legally recoverable on the date of the application. In ascertaining the question whether any particular claim of any bank or financial institution would come within the purview of the tribunal created under the Act, it is imperative that the entire averments made by the applicant bank in the original application be looked into and them find out whether notwithstanding the specially-created tribunal having been constituted, the averments are such that it is not possible to hold that the jurisdiction of such a tribunal is ousted. With the aforesaid principle in mind, on examining the averments made in the plaint, this Tribunal has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the claim in question made by the plaintiff is essentially one for recovery of a debt due to it from the defendants and, therefore, is the Tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Therefore, these both issues stand decided in the favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants.

ISSUE No. III:

48. No doubt, there was transaction between defendant no. 1 and 3 qua the oxygen cylinders and it is being stated on behalf of defendant no. 3 that an amount of Rs. 64.0 lac was due on behalf of defendant no. 1 qua supply of oxygen cylinder as there was some embezzlement on the part of defendant no. 1 and it is also being stated on the part of defendant no. 3 that after taking the cylinders by defendant no. 1 from defendant no. 3, the defendant no. 1 started got refilling the cylinders from other service stations, therefore, huge losses have been caused to the defendant no. 3, accordingly, Rs. 64.0 lac were due against the cylinders issued by defendant no. 3, but the Cheque qua part payment Rs. 20.0 lac was only given by defendant no. 1 which was presented on 26.08.2008 qua the rental and part payments, accordingly, the same was bounced. Though from the entire evidence placed on record by either of the parties, it is not proved that any such immediate intimation was given on the part of applicant bank to defendant no. 4/Yes Bank before 27.05.2009. Further, though it is admitted on behalf of Yes Bank that such intimation was received vide letter dated 27.05.2009 of applicant bank, but thereafter the Yes Bank did not initiate any action against the defendant no. 3, which was having an account in Yes Bank and the amount was withdrawn by the defendant no. 3 from the account held with Yes Bank. It is also worthwhile to mention that on behalf of applicant bank it is proved on record that notice dated 07.11.2009 was issued by the applicant bank to all the defendants including defendant no. 1 demanding the said amount. Though, a reply to the same was also filed on behalf of defendant no. 3 on 17.11.2009, when this fact came to the knowledge of defendant no. 3 that the Cheque, which was presented by defendant no. 3 with above banker i.e. Yes Bank, and Yes Bank sent an image through Cheque Truncation System to applicant bank and only on 27.05.2009, it came to the knowledge of the Yes Bank that there were "insufficient funds" in the account and this fact is very much mentioned by the applicant bank in its Notice dated 07.11.2009, which was sent to defendant no. 3, therefore, this fact came to the knowledge of defendant no. 3, accordingly, the defendant no. 3 was supposed to take/initiate criminal or civil action against defendant no. 1 for commission of fraud.

49. Though, the defendant no. 3 alleged that 400 cylinders were given to defendant no. 1 and the cost of same was approximately Rs. 6000/- per cylinder. It is also argued on behalf of defendant no. 3 that an amount of Rs. 64.0 lac were due against the rental and part payments, but till date no such proof has been filed that any Civil Suit has been filed for recovery of the said amount. What to speak of that about filing of any Suit for recovery of Rs. 64.0 lac, even no document is placed on record to prove that any Civil Suit has been filed for recovery of remaining Rs. 44.0 lac, as admitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 3. Had, there been any such dues of defendant no. 3 against defendant no. 1, accordingly, defendant no. 3 would have filed the recovery suit against defendant no. 1 not only for recovery of remaining amount, but also for recovery of Rs. 20.0 lac, after receipt of notice dated 07.11.2009, whereby applicant bank clearly stated that a fraud has been committed and amount has been illegally stand transferred by Yes Bank in the account of defendant no. 3, but, nothing was done by defendant no. 3. (Though, the applicant bank did not take any action within the stipulated period as prescribed by RBI) but, the defendant no. 3 is certainly became liable after the receipt of demand notice dated 07.11.2009 as he was duly acknowledged, that the defendant no. 3 was not entitled to the amount, being not available in the account of defendant no. 1.

50. So far as, the liability of defendant no. 1 is concerned? Apparently, it is proved on record that defendant no. 1 has given a Cheque amounting to Rs. 20.0 lac in favour of defendant no. 3 knowingly that there was no such arrangement of amount in his account. Though, on account of some technical snag in Cheque Truncation System, the information could not reach to the defendant no. 4 within the stipulated period and the amount was stand credited by defendant no. 4 in the account of defendant no. 3 drawing presumption as per guidelines of RBI, as the said error also could not be proved on record, therefore, there is also negligence on the part of applicant bank. It is also matter of fact that this fact came to the knowledge of applicant bank on 29.08.2008, therefore, after that, the responsibility stand shifted to Yes Bank i.e. defendant no. 4 to convey the same to defendant no 3 that the amount has been wrongly disbursed in its account due to technical snag. Further, defendant no. 1, knowingly that funds were not there in his account, gave a Cheque to defendant no. 3 and after receipt of demand notice from the applicant bank, the same was not reported. Hence, all these acts/omissions on the part of defendants no. 3 & 1 shows that there was active connivance between them.

51. Hence, apparently, fraud has been committed by defendant no. 1 upon the applicant bank and due to that amount of Rs. 20.0 lac has been transferred by Yes Bank to defendant no. 3. However, Yes Bank came to know about the same only after receiving letter dated 26.05.2009 issued by applicant bank. Apparently, in the present matter intimation to Yes Bank was given after a long time and by that time defendant no. 4, assuming as per RBI guidelines that Cheque presented by defendant no. 3, has been cleared by the applicant bank, therefore, defendant no. 4/Yes Bank cannot be made liable, as the transfer has been carried out in routine business activities and as per guidelines issued by RBI. In this regard, reliance can also be placed on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Industrial Chain Concern : 1990 SCC (1) 484 wherein it is held that a banker receives payment of a crossed cheque for a customer not withstanding under any statute governing the said transaction that he credits his customer account with the amount of the cheque before receiving payment thereof.

52. So far as, the liability of defendant no. 3 is concerned? No doubt, it may be entitled for Rs. 20.0 lac towards the Cheque given by defendant no. 1 and the same has been received, but once it has come to the knowledge of defendant no. 3 that Cheque was "Exceeding its Arrangement" and the fraud has been committed by defendant no. 1 not only upon applicant bank, but also on defendant no. 3, then certainly defendant no. 3 was required to initiate action against defendant no. 1, but it was not so done. Therefore, once the public money has come into the account of defendant no. 3 through defendant no. 4, to which, the defendant no. 3 was not legally entitled. Therefore, there is "unjust enrichment" as the defendant no. 3 was entitled to receive the payment from defendant no. 1 and not from the applicant bank. Therefore, there is apparent "unjust enrichment" in the present matter, which is not permissible under the law, as there is implied contract under Section 72 of Indian Contract Act 1872 which is as under:-

"72. Liability of person to whom money is paid, or thing delivered, by mistake or under coercion.-A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it."
53. In this regard reliance can also be placed on the citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Mahabir Kishore V. State of Madhya Pradesh : AIR 1990 SC 313 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the basis postulates for the principle of unjust enrichment thus:-

"The principle of unjust enrichment requires : First, that the defendant has been enriched by the receipt of a "benefit"; secondly, that this enrichment is "at the expense of the plaintiff and thirdly; that the retention of the enrichment be unjust. This justifies restitution.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

Enrichment may take the form of direct advantage to the recipient's wealth such as the receipt of money or indirect one for instance where inevitable expense has been saved." 54. Similar preposition has been laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 1803/2015 in the case titled as M/s. Panjwani Packaging Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Allahabad Bank wherein the major question before the Hon'ble Court was whether the amount which is wrongly credited by the bank in the account of its customer can be treated as money which the customer can be held liable to pay back - Whether or not the bank could have approached DRT for recovery of the aforesaid money -Under the purview of Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act), it was held as under:- ..........money credited by the bank in the account of a customer by mistake or under coercion, when retained by the customer or wrongfully withdrawn or refused to be returned, when demanded, amounts to unjust enrichment. The fact as to whether the payment was made voluntarily or otherwise is of no consequences so long as the payment was made mistakenly (on pursuant to coercion) and was not due. By virtue of Section 72 of the Contract Act, the customer receiving the money in such facts and circumstances is bound to repay or return it On account of such obligation to repay or return the money received by mistake, or under coercion, such amount is rendered due from the customer to the bank and thus in the nature of a liability constitution a "debt" which the bank may lawfully claim by way of application to the DRT under the provisions of RDDBFI Act, subject, of course, to all just exceptions including the bar of limitation " 55. Therefore, once the fact of dishonouring of Cheque-in-question came to the knowledge of the defendant no. 3 that the fraud is committed by defendant no. 1, and the funds have been wrongly transferred in its account by applicant bank through defendant no. 4, therefore, defendant no. 3 was required to return the same and recourse to the defendant no. 3 was to proceed to recover the same from defendant no. 1 by adopting legal resort, which is not so adopted by defendant no. 3, therefore, defendant no. 3 is also liable along with defendant no. 1 (jointly and severally). 56. So far as liability of defendant no. 2 is concerned? Though it is being argued on the part of applicant bank that Cash Credit Facility was sanctioned in favour of defendant no. 1 and during the period of dishonouring of the Cheque as well as issuance of legal demand notice to defendants no. 1 to 4, the defendant no. 1 got encashed the FDRs vide, which the amount was deposited as a security, however, illegally and malafidely, some of the amount was got transferred in the account of defendant no. 2 who is none else, but wife of defendant no. 1 and later on, the said amount was also withdrawn from the account of defendant no. 2, which shows active connivance between defendants no. 1 & 2, therefore, defendant no. 2 is also liable along with rest of the defendants to the extent of Rs. 1.70 lac. No doubt, it is being so stated on behalf of applicant bank, but apparently, there also appears to be acute negligence on the part of the applicant bank to that effect, who had permitted the defendant no. 1 to withdraw the amount and later on kept the same transferred in the account of defendant no. 2, when the applicant bank itself negligent and that for mere reason, the defendant no. 2 cannot be held liable along with defendant no. 1. Hence, it is held that defendant no. 2 is not liable for any amount. ISSUE No. IV: 57. In the present matter, on behalf of applicant bank, interest, @ 15.50% p.a. with monthly rests besides 2% penal interest, has been claimed, however, there is no such agreement between the parties qua the interest which has to be charged by the applicant bank, therefore, prevailing commercial rate of interest has to be charged in this regard. Taking stock of all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate of 15.50% p.a. compounded monthly is awarded on Rs. 20.0 lac from the date of receipt of the said amount in the account of defendant no. 3 i.e. from 28.08.2008 as admitted by defendant no. 3 in its reply dated 01.06.2009 addressed to applicant bank i.e. Ex. AW-1/4 till its actual realization in full. 58. In sequel of above said discussions, this Tribunal comes to conclusion that defendants no. 1 & 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount of Rs. 20.0 lac along with interest @15.50% p.a. compounded monthly from 28.08.2008 till its actual realization in full. RELIEF (i) Resultantly, the present OA stands partly allowed against the defendants no. 1 & 3, who are liable jointly and severally, to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30-days, a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only) alongwith costs and pendente lite & future interest @15.50% per annum compounded monthly from 28.08.2008; accordingly, these defendants are directed to pay, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties/assets of the defendant no. 1 & 3. (ii) The Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery Tribunal-III Delhi. (iii) Applicant bank is directed to file fresh Statement of Accounts before Ld. Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer-I, DRT-III, Delhi on 25.03.2020. (v) Copies of final order be sent to all concerned free of cost. File be consigned to records.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 Ashok Vishwakarma Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
28-09-2020 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-09-2020 Ashok Kumar Swarnkar Versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-09-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Tukaram Dhamne & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-09-2020 Ashok Keshubhai Solanki Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-09-2020 Ashok Versus The State of Karnataka Reb. by Addl. SPP, (Through Babaleshwar P.S.) High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Ashok Kumar & Another Versus Director/Managing Director, Mahaluxmi Buildtech Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-08-2020 M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana Versus United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam Versus Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 Papu Ashok Supekar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 The Chairman & Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Rajini & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-07-2020 Ashok Janardhan Dhumule Versus M/s. Ankur Seeds Private Limited, Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-07-2020 Ashok Devman Gangurde Versus Dagu Chiman Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-06-2020 Bilsy Joseph, now residing at 3743, Falkner Drive, United States of America, Represented by her Power of Attorney holder (Mother), Rosamma Joseph, Kottayam Versus Registrar of Births & Deaths, Changanassery Muncipality, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Md. Khayyumkhan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 C/M Ashok Vidyalaya & Another Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-06-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 Sunil @ Sunil Ashok Gadivaddar Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by SPP, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-06-2020 Ashok Sharma Versus State of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
18-06-2020 Shashi Malhotra Versus Ashok Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
08-06-2020 Ashok Kumar & Others Versus Ramesh Chand & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
04-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus N. Prathap & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 PUEBLO HOLDINGS LIMITED, Rep. by its authorised signatory Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar Versus EMIRATES TRADING AGENCY LLC, A company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the United Arab Emirates having its registered office and/or business address at ETA Star House, United Arab Emirates & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 Sharanbasappa Versus The State through Ashok Nagar P.S., Represented by Addl. SPP High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
20-05-2020 Mohit Kumar & Another Versus Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-05-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Regional Office, through its Divisional Office & Others Versus Shriniwas Ramayya Kamtam & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
15-04-2020 United Nurses Association Through Its President Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 K. Anandhan Versus S. Ashok Kumar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
12-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur Versus Kaveriammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 S. Mahadevan Versus The General Manager, (Appellate Authority) Personnel Department, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Div. Office- I, Secunderabad Versus Syed Mohd. Rayees & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Versus The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai – 90 High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 South Eastern Coalfields Limited Versus Ashok Kumar Thakur High Court of Chhattisgarh
05-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus B. Sudha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Nirmala Kothari Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ankit Ashok Jalan Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Sharma Versus Nirmaldas Manikpuri High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-03-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta & Another Versus M/s. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 United Bank of India, West Bengal Versus Ranjan Basu & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Yechuri Nirmala & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Geetha & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Neyveli High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Ashok Chandra Tamta Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
28-02-2020 Ashok Kumar Gupta (Died) Versus Gauri Bagchi High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 M/s. Satguru Oxygen Company Versus Ashok Dutta High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through Shahapur Police Station) Versus Ashok @ Ramchandra Bhikaji Wagh & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 Pulakhanadam Phani Raja Kumari Versus M/s Aliens Developers Pvt. Ltd., Reptd. by its Managing Director Sri N. Ashok Kumar & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
25-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Kantilal Gandhi Vendor & Prop. of M/s Gunjan Traders High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-02-2020 S. Senguttuvel & Others Versus The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor TP Claims Hub, Represented by its Manager Versus T. Thimmanna & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-02-2020 Ashok Misra & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-02-2020 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore V/S Rani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Versus Ashok Ramchander Chugani & Another Supreme Court of India
17-02-2020 Ashok Chand Kothari Versus Alpna & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
17-02-2020 R. Jayavelu Versus R. Ashok & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 M/s. Baspa Organics Limited V/S United India Insurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 Shanta Chatterjee @ Shanta Ashok Versus Avijit Chatterjee (since deceased) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-02-2020 The United Goans Foundation, through its Secretary Avinash Tavares Versus The State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-02-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Suresh Laxman Babar Sainagar Zopadpatti & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus C. Meenakshi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Ashok Kumar V/S Principal Secretary and Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
06-02-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Versus Syed Rehmath Ali & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-02-2020 Canara Bank Versus M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
05-02-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Md Nur Mohamed High Court of Gauhati
04-02-2020 Dr. Ashok & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-02-2020 C. Ashok Kumar Versus Santhammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Ashok Mandal Versus Amrita Devi High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-02-2020 Rajesh Narula Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
31-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore Versus Purushothaman (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 B. Alphonse Legori Versus CPIO /Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission