In this writ petition, the State Bank of Hyderabad prayed for interference with the DRT and DRAT orders upholding a set-off claim by respondents. The High Court found no error warranting intervention and dismissed the petition.
The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
skc
206-WP-834-06.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 834 OF 2006
State Bank of Hyderabad .. Petitioner versus Dynavox Industries Limited & Anr. .. Respondents
None for Petitioner.
Mr. Dhaval Patil i/b. K. Ashar & Co. for Kotak Mahindra Bank.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE AND M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : 26 JULY 2016
P.C.:
1] Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Kotak Mahindra Bank has submitted that the petitioner i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad has assigned the debt, which is the subject matter of the present petition to the Kotak Mahindra Bank. He submitted that in pursuance of the chamber summons taken out, Kotak Mahindra Bank has already been impleaded as respondent in the present petition and is interested in pursuing the present petition. Accordingly, we have heard Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Kotak Mahindra Bank in support of the present petition.
2] We have perused the orders passed by the DRT and DRAT. The DRT has in fact allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to jointly and severally pay Rs.8,94,43,109.30 ps. with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the realisation of the amount. The DRT
1 of 2
skc 2 206-WP-834-06.doc
however also held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to a set off in an amount of Rs.514.79 lacs. Aggrieved by this part of the DRT's order, the petitioner State Bank of Hyderabad appealed to the DRAT.
3] The DRAT after considering the material on record has upheld the order of the DRT. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order the DRAT has observed that though the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had specifically raised a set off in an amount of Rs.514.79 lacs in their written statement, the petitioner bank did not even bother to refute the said claim of set off, by filing any affidavit. Even otherwise, the DRAT, upon examination of the material on record, has held that there was no legal infirmity in the matter of set off awarded in favour of the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the DRAT confirmed the order made by the DRT.
4] The learned counsel for Kotak Mahindra Bank was unable to point out serious error in the orders made by the DRT and DRAT, as would warrant interference by this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
5] Petition is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
(V. M. KANADE, J.)
chandka
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed given that the learned counsel for the assignee bank could not point out any error in the lower court orders regarding the set-off claim.
State Bank of Hyderabad
Dynavox Industries Limited
Kotak Mahindra Bank
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
