S.P.KANNAPPAN vs Bank of Madura Ltd.

SHRI S.P. Kannappan has filed a complaint under Sections 10(a)(i), 10B and Section 36B(a) of the MRTP Act, 1969 (the Act for brief) against the respondents, Bank of Madura Ltd. as represented by its Branch Managers, Fort Branch, Bazar Gate Street and Ghatkopar Branch, Bombay and Poonam View Co-operative Housing Ltd. It has been stated therein that SHRI K.N. Kannappan Chettiar had purchased a flat bearing No. 3 consisting of 3 rooms measuring 625 sq.ft from Poonam View Housing Society Ltd., R.B. Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (East), Bombay and also became a member of the respondent Society by purchasing its 5 shares. Besides, 3 other flats were purchased by Smt. S.P. Visalakshi, SHRI K.N. Subbiah and Smt. N.S.SigappiAchi, petitioner''s mother, father and grandmother respectively. It is further added that the petitioner''s grandfather obtained a loan of Rs. 50,000/- at the interest rate of 12.5% per annum from the Bank of Madura. Fort Branch for the purchase of the flat. The loan application was made on 2.12.1974 and it was sanctioned on the condition that the flat would be leased to the Bank and the loan amount would be adjusted by crediting the monthly rent due from the respondent. The flat was occupied by the Ghatkopar Branch of the respondent Bank, on lease, for a period of 10 years, and the respondent has been in occupation of the flat ever since.

IT has been further stated that a Suit No. 679 filed by the respondent Madura Bank against Shri Kannappa Chettiar for the recovery of loan of Rs. 50,000/- was decreed ex parte on 1.11.1996. Even though the respondent has been in occupation of the flat ever since it was taken, not a single paise has been paid by way of rent, during this period. IT has been further alleged that the respondent has been using most unfair methods and indulging in monopolistic, restrictive and unfair trade practices within the meaning of Sections 36A, 2(i), (iii) and 2(o)(ii) of the Act. The applicant/complainant''s Advocate Mr. C.T. Selvamani was given a hearing on the question of maintainability of the complaint/ compensation application. It is admitted that a loan of Rs. 50,000/- at the interest rate of 12.5% was obtained from the respondent, Bank of Madura. According to him there was an agreement that the flat purchased by the applicant/complainant''s father would be taken on lease by the respondent Bank and the lease was for a period of 10 years initially. However, neither a copy of the lease deed nor the agreement between the applicant/complainant and the respondent regarding the amount of rent and its mode of payment by way of adjustment against the loan amount has been filed alongwith the complaint/application.

Furthermore, it transpires that a suit was filed by the respondent for the recovery of the loan amount and a decree has been obtained by the respondent Bank. It goes to show that there is a dispute between the debtor and the creditor and there is also a dispute between them for the possession of the flat and payment of rent etc. In other words, it is admitted that litigation is going on between the parties. In brief, prima facie, no case has been made out against the respondent for alleged unfair or restrictive trade practices. Accordingly, the complaint/compensation application is not maintainable and is dismissed.

THIS order will dispose of the complaint/ Compensation Application No. 313/97 F. No. 37(238) CA/97 filed by Smt. S.P. Visalakshi against the same respondents and on the same grounds. Since the disputes between the parties pertain to recovery of loan amount, recovery of rent and possession of the property and litigation between them is on in Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction and above all, no prima facie case of monopolistic, restrictive or unfair trade practices has been made out, the complaint/petition is dismissed as not maintainable. A copy of this order may be placed in the relevant file of the above application/petitioner. Pronounced. Complaint dismissed. ______________