Decided on August 14,2006



K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THE appellant herein, who is the 6th defendant in the OA-382/2003 had taken out an Application in IA-475/ 2005 for the return of the documents in the pending OA and the same came to be dismissed by the DRT, Coimbatore, by its Order dated 5.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, this Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. I have heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondent.
(2.) The case of the appellants is that they have deposited certain documents with Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. with an intention to create equitable mortgage and the said Bank filed TA-1320/2002, and their claim was settled out of Court. When the appellants applied for the return of the documents before the Tribunal, that application was dismissed on the ground that no documents were available with the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank, respondent herein, filed OA-382/ 2003 and the same is pending. That in the OA, the appellants had taken out an application for the return of the documents contending that the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank in the OA filed by them had contended that there was no pari passu charge in respect of the properties, which were given as security to the said Bank and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to get back the documents from the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank was made as a party in the OA. filed by the Lakshmi Vilas Bank as the 6th defendant, in which the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank has filed counter along with the documents of title deeds deposited by the appellants herein. The respondent, viz. Lakshmi Vilas Bank, also filed an application for the grant of injunction not to return the said documents till the disposal of the OA. The Tribunal heard both the applications and dismissed the same. But however, it had observed that the defendants 1 to 5 had created equitable mortgage over the properties, the title deeds of which were already handed over to Tamilnad Mercantile Bank. The claim of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank had already been satisfied, but however the respondent Bank, viz. Lakshmi Vilas Bank, claims part passu charge in respect of the securities given by the appellants herein.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the appellants has advanced an argument that in the OA filed by the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, though apart passu charge was created in respect of the securities, since Lakshmi Vilas Bank has enhanced the credit limit without the consent of the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank and thereby violated the terms of the pari passu agreement, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank had revoked the part passu charge by their letter dated 15.9.1999, and therefore, the Lakshmi Vilas Bank cannot claim any right over the title deeds, which are in the hands of the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.