Remanded

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. R.Varadharajan & Ors.

DRAT14 Sept 2022REGULAR APPEAL/13/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by bank challenging DRT order partly allowing claim and dismissing it against former manager. Court remitted matter to DRT to allow evidence production regarding contractual liability instead of deciding merits on appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside insofar as Defendant No.3 concerned; matter remitted to Tribunal below to examine issue afresh with opportunity to produce evidence.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus R.Varadharajan & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

RA 13/2020

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 14^th of September, 2022

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

RA 13/2020

¶6

(OA 820/2018 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

¶9

Rep. by its Manager Arni Branch, No.38, Thatchur Road, Arni 632 301. Thiruvannamalai District. ….Appellant Bank

¶10

And

¶11

Mr. R. Varadharajan, S/o T.R.Rangasamy, No.9/43, Thulukkapalayam, Thudupathi Post,

¶12

Perundurai 638 057.

¶13

Mr. R. Suresh, S/o Rajarathinam, H-539, Phase-I, Muthuampalayam,

¶14

Erode 638 009.

¶15

Mr. K. Suresh, S/o A. Kandasamy, No.139/1, Avallappa Swamy Kovil Street,

¶16

Virudhunagar Town 626 001.

¶17

Virudhunagar District. …Respondents

¶18

Respondents 1 and 2 are given up.

¶19

¶20

RA 13/2020

¶21

Counsel for Appellant Bank	: M/s K.N. Chinnakrishnan & E. Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.3	: Ms. K. Jayaganga

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against order dated 28.3.2019 in OA

¶24

820/2018 on the file DRT-II, Chennai, wherein Tribunal below partly allowed OA claim amount of Rs.18,81,254.66p against defendants 1 and 2 with interest at 12% per annum (simple) from the date of OA till realisation and dismissed the OA against Defendant No.3, who is a former Manager of appellant bank.

¶25

Heard both sides.

¶26

Advocate for appellant bank submitted that claim against Defendant No.3 is dismissed solely on the ground that there is no contractual liability. But, Tribunal below failed to consider relationship of ‘Employer – Employee’ thereby contractual liability would arise and represented that necessary evidence is

¶27

available for the same and he is ready to produce the same and prayed to consider claim against Defendant No.3.

¶28

On the other hand, advocate for Defendant No.3 submitted that already Defendant No.3 suffered departmental action and at this stage it is not desirable to give an opportunity to appellant to produce evidence.

¶29

¶30

RA 13/2020

¶31

Considering the submissions of both sides, without going into merits and demerits of the case, as claim against Defendant No.3 is dismissed for want of

¶32

evidence, I deem it appropriate that an opportunity should be given to appellant bank to produce evidence in support of claim against Defendant No.3. When claim

¶33

is dismissed for want of evidence, instead of allowing appellant to produce evidence in the appeal, I feel, matter should be remitted back to Tribunal below so that both parties will have an opportunity to rebutt the evidence of each other.

¶34

Considering the same, impugned order dated 28.3.2019 is set aside insofar as

¶35

Defendant No.3 is concerned and matter is remitted back with a direction to

¶36

Tribunal below to examine the issue afresh against Defendant No.3, by giving opportunity to both parties to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions.

¶37

Appeal RA 13/2020 is disposed of, accordingly with no order as to costs. All

¶38

pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶39

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 14^th September, 2022]

¶40

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. R.Varadharajan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. R.Varadharajan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

A.O., Hsbc Ltd. versus Mr.Ismath Batcha & Anr.

Ms Ganekar And Co. versus Canara Bank

Sunrise Chennai Distributors P Ltd. Rep by Mr Subash Backyaraj Director versus Idbi Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus S.Suresh Kumar & Ors.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus R.Suresh & Anr.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus v.Dakshinamoorthy & Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

A.O., Hsbc Ltd. versus Mr.Ismath Batcha & Anr.

Ms Ganekar And Co. versus Canara Bank

Sunrise Chennai Distributors P Ltd. Rep by Mr Subash Backyaraj Director versus Idbi Bank

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus S.Suresh Kumar & Ors.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus R.Suresh &amp; Anr.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus v.Dakshinamoorthy & Ors.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus R.Suresh & Anr.