Central Bank of India v. Shahdev Jewellers
Case brief
What is this about?
The Appellate Tribunal disposed of a transfer application filed by a company challenging jurisdiction. The Tribunal refused to interfere, noting the lower Tribunal had fixed a date for the appellant to raise all grievances, including jurisdiction, before the designated Tribunal. The matter was dismissed with liberty to raise all issues on the fixed date.
What did the court decide?
Transfer application disposed of; liberty to appellant to raise all grievances regarding jurisdiction on the date fixed before DRT, Dehradun.
I.A. No. 139/2022 & I.A. No. 138/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 238/2022
Date: 24.06.2022 M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Present: Shri D. D. Chopra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Manoj Chopra, counsel for the appellant, Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Learned counsel for the appellant files rejoinder affidavit to the reply of the respondent-Bank, wherein it has been stated that the appellant is a private limited company having its registered office at Lucknow and all the Directors reside at Lucknow and their permanent residence are also in the same city. Further, the appellant company was sanctioned a term loan by PICKUP situated at Gomati Nagar, Lucknow and income tax as well as sale tax assessments of the appellantcompany are also carried out at Lucknow. Reference in this regard has been made to para 5 of the rejoinder filed by the appellant.
It is further argued on behalf of the appellant that a manufacturing unit was setup at Kashipur in the year 1989, therefore, the appellant had opened its account in the State Bank of India, Kashipur prior to sanction of the loan by the State Bank of India, as the manufacturing unit was at Kashipur, therefore, the appellant was operating its Bank account with the State Bank of India, Kashipur. In para 9 of the rejoinder, it is stated that the State Bank of India, Kashipur informed the appellant vide letter dated 26.07.2004 that the appellant’s Bank account has been transferred to the State Bank of India, Lucknow. Subsequent to it, the State Bank of India entered into compromise (OTS) with the appellant vide order dated 22.08.2005. It is also stated that all the subsequent correspondences were also made by the appellant with the State Bank of India at Lucknow and not
from the State Bank of India, Kashipur. As such the Bank and appellant, both are situated at Lucknow.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present transfer application is maintainable despite the Tribunal below making observations on jurisdiction but not passing a final order.
Whether the appellant can raise all grievances, including jurisdiction, on the date fixed before the DRT, Dehradun without prejudice.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Coram
Justice R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · June
- CNR
- 091090003112022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court