UNION BANK OF INDIA vs SYED JABEER & ORS (BLR) on 30 June 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. The present Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 20.04.2016 under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 and numbered as OA.No.870/2016 to recover a Sum of Rs.13,53,491/-(Rupees thirteen lakh fifty three four hundred ninety one only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants. Subsequently, the Application was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bangalore to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA.No.1090/2017.

2. It is the case of the applicant that by mistake of the applicant bank, an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) credited to the current account of the defendants No.1 to 3 and they withdrawn and utilized a sum of Rs.25,22,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs twenty two thousand only).

3. It is further contended that, the defendants despite withdrawal of the amount, failed in refunding the same, resulted in lodging an FIR against them. It is also contended that despite repeated demands to pay back the amount no remittance was made.

4. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

5. Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 04.12.2024.

6. The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the TA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

8. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the TA claim as against the defendant? ii) What order are to be passed?

iii) Whether the claim made by the applicant bank in the present T.A. is a ‘debt’ so as to maintain the Applicant?

All these issues are gone into and decided together.

9. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove disbursement of the amount and demand by the applicant to get the amount refunded. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

10. While dealing with the third issue, the expression ‘debt’ is defined in Section 2 (g) of RDDBFI Act, 1993, means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank 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 financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in case 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. The word ‘Liability’ in Section 2(g) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 has to be read in the light of the Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, 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.

11. In a matter of “Balaji Oil Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, Mannady Branch”, Neutral Citation (AIR2018Mad200), It is held that, when the amount has been wrongly credited and when a demand is made to repay, and when the customer retains the money wrongfully and refused to return the same, then the same amounts to unjust enrichment. It is the submission of the bank that on account of such obligation to repay or return the money received by mistake, such amount is a liability, constitution ‘debts’ within the meaning of ‘debt’ as per Section 2(g) of RDDBFI Act, 1993. Hence, bank is entitled to recover the amount, credited into the petitioner’s account as ‘debts’ however, subject to limitation. Going by the citation as laid down by Madras High Court, this Tribunal is of the view that the amount credited by mistake, which converted to their use by the defendants tantamount to debt.

12.

12. Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal finds all the three issues in favor of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that TA is liable to be allowed. However, as all these happened due to negligence of the bank interest is awarder @12%.

13. In the result, TA.No.1090/2017, stands allowed,

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.13,53,491/-(Rupees thirteen lakhs fifty three thousand four hundred ninety one only) with further interest @12% p.a. (Simple), from the date of filing TA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally to their assets includes to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the TA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21) (i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. [Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of June, 2025]. Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Kalaraju K, Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Date Particulars of Documents A1 -- Applicant Evidence A2 -- List of Documents. A3 18.11.2015 Copy of the Notice A4

The acknowledgement issued by the postal department A5 23.11.2015 The letter of defendant No.1 to the applicant bank requesting for time to make the payment. A6 24.11.2015 FIR lodged by the bank with chamarajapet Police. A7 04.01.2016 Endorsement issued by the Chamarajapet Police station A8 27.11.2015 Legal notice issued to defendant No.1 A9

Postal Receipt

A10 19.12.2015 Letter of the bank to ICICI Bank, Cantonment branch to provide residential address of the D2 and D3 A11

The acknowledgement issued by the postal department A12

The acknowledgement issued by the postal department A13 06.04.2016 Statement of account of Defendant No.1 A14 19.02.2016 Letter of defendant No.1 acknowledging the receipt of legal notices A15 15.04.2016 Statement of accounts of defendants No.1

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER