9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tances of the present case, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the Act is made out against the OPs. Accordingly, the information is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions contained in Section 26(2) of the Act. Consequently, no case for grant for relief(s) as sought under Section 33 of the Act arises and the said request is rejected. - MS. RAVNEET KAUR CHAIRPERSON, MS. SWETA KAKKAD MEMBER AND MR. DEEPAK ANURAG MEMBER Order under Section 26(2) of the Competition Act, 2002 1. The present Information has been filed on 11.03.2024 by Mr. A V Satheeshkumar ( the Informant ) under Section 19(1) (a) of the Competition Act, 2002 ( the Act ) against (i) The Chief Manager/CEO, Cathol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank, which the Informant alleged to have been done without his knowledge or any enquiry by the bank officials into the credentials of ownership/ possession of the property. 5. The Informant stated himself to be unaware of the said fraud until 2020 when a possession notice dated 08.10.2020 issued by CSB Bank for recovery of Rs. 3.89 Crores, which had been borrowed by Mr Mathew/ his wife viz. Ms. Mareena Mathew and his firm M/s Team Sustain, was received. 6. The Informant further stated that he and his wife are in possession of the property and have been paying the taxes etc. regarding the property till date. He also stated to have a tenant in the said property since 2002. 7. Upon knowing of the charge upon the property, Informant stated to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CSB Bank to stop all proceedings of recovery action in relation to the property till the matter is inquired by the Commission. 13. The Commission considered the matter in its ordinary meeting held on 01.05.2024 and decided to pass an appropriate order in due course. 14. The Commission has perused the Information and other material provided by the Informant and observed that the Informant appears to be aggrieved from the conduct of Mr. Mathew of mortgaging Informant and Informant s wife s property to CSB Bank purportedly without Informant s knowledge for availing loan/ credit from the bank and resultant default by Mr. Mathew in repayment of the said loan. Due to alleged collusion between Mr. Mathew and the Bank officials, recovery proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oing so, and has filed the instant matter before the Commission in anticipation of some relief. 18. The Commission also notes that the Informant has alleged collusion between Mr. Mathew and bank officials in contravention of the provisions of the Act but has not invoked any specific provision of the Act which is allegedly violated and also not made Mr. Mathew a party to these proceedings. 19. Be that as it may, the Commission is of the view that the above facts and circumstances do not involve any competition issue, and resultantly, does not warrant scrutiny from the perspective of the Act. 20. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that no prima facie case of contravention of the provisions of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
