Complaint Filed Before Minorities Commission To Short-Circuit Payment Of Dues & To Avoid Arrest: Bombay HC Allows HDFC Bank’s Plea In Harassment Case
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition of HDFC Bank Limited seeking setting aside of the notice issued by the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission asking to attend a hearing.
The Court was dealing with a case in which a complaint was filed by the permanent trustee of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical (LKMM) Trust before the Minorities Commission, alleging severe harassment and mental torture by the Bank.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said, “When Mr.Mehta was unable to taste success in either of the proceedings, to short-circuit the payment of the amount due under the Recovery Certificate and to avoid the arrest, the present complaint is filed before the Minorities Commission, constituted under Section 3 of the Act of 2004.”
The Bench added that, if an authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and despite this, merely stating that it has issued a notice, so that a response can be received and, thereafter, it will decide whether to proceed ahead or not, cannot assume jurisdiction.
Senior Advocates Shirish Gupta and Kevic Setalvad represented the petitioners while Senior Advocates A.Y. Sakhare and Abad Ponda represented the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The respondent (complainant) i.e., trustee of LKMM Trust lodged a complaint with Vice Chairperson of Minority Commission, alleging severe harassment and mental torture caused to him and his late father, Kishor Mehta an eminent person belonging to Jain Minority Community, by the Senior Management and Recovery Department of HDFC Bank, allegedly in collusion with the erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust and attributing that this harassment caused death of his father. As per the complaint, his family was engaged in a fierce litigation with erstwhile trustees of LKMM Trust, with regard to the control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital for last two decades and the legal battle was carried upto the Supreme Court and pursuant to the order passed by the Court, the Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the claim of trusteeship of the erstwhile trustees, thereby finally giving his family the opportunity to take over the management and control of LKMM Trust and Lilavati Hospital.
It was also stated in the complaint that in the year 2002, HDFC Bank, being part of consortium of banks, had initiated the recovery proceedings against the borrower company, and his late father, in which he himself, was arraigned as the Defendant. In 2004, HDFC Bank Ltd. was successful in getting the Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs.14.74 crores from Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against the borrower company, Mehtas and other defendants. It was further alleged that, despite auction of properties, in the year 2017-18, HDFC Bank started recovery proceedings against the defendants.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “The Minorities Commission, which is constituted for the avowed object of safeguarding the rights of minorities and to make recommendations with a view to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all the safeguards, definitely cannot be usurped by the Complainant, who wants to shirk the liability fastened upon him by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, a competent authority to pronounce upon the default in Recovery Proceedings and who has a warrant awaiting him and also face an action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”
The Court further remarked that, since he is a member of Jain community, the complainant cannot knock the doors of the Commission and get the orders passed in lawful manner, either set aside or circumvented and since this is not an option available to him, the Commission has no power to set aside such orders, but what it is empowered to do is, to make recommendations to the competent authority.
“But, definitely if a liability is fastened upon him by an appropriate forum, he cannot take benefit of he being a member of minority community”, it added.
The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant was restrained from travelling outside India and if he had to do so, he was supposed to deposit 25% of due amount as on the date of visit and file an undertaking to return back and also obtain permission from the Recovery Officer.
“On several such applications being filed, they were rejected as he avoided to make payment under the Recovery Certificate”, it said.
The Court, therefore, held that the issuance of notice to the petitioners is beyond the jurisdiction of the Minorities Commission.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned notice, and restrained the Commission from proceeding with the complaint.
Cause Title- HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:14485-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocates Shirish Gupta, Kevic Setalvad, Advocates Dharam Jumani, Jehan Lalkaka, Mihir Nerurkar, Prapti Kedia, Rushikesh Dusane, Neha Ravlela, Amit Singh, and Anasamah Sayed.
Respondents: Senior Advocates A.Y. Sakhare, Abad Ponda, AGP Sheetal Malvankar, Advocates Rohan Mirpury, Yogesh Patil, Kushal Mor, Marmik Shah, Abhishek Prabhu, Asim Mohd., Chitlesh Dalmia, Jyoti Ghag, and Shailesh Prajapati.
