Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Vudem Devendram

DRAT15 Jun 2022REGULAR APPEAL/137/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India, setting aside a bottom-line dismissal of a recovery claim by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for lack of reasoning, and remanded the matter for a decision afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and order dated 28.5.2018 set aside; matter remanded to Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad with direction to decide afresh.

State Bank of India versus Smt Vudem Devendram — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 137 of 2018)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 363 of 2013 in DRT-1, Hyderabad)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

15.6.2022 State Bank of India … Appellant

¶6

-VsSmt. Vudem Devendram … Respondent

¶7

Ms. Mekhala Kanji, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶8

None for Respondent

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

The instant appeal arises out of the order and judgment dated 28^th May, 2018 passed by the Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in O.A. 363 of 2013 whereby the O.A. was rejected.

¶11

Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Affidavit-of-service, filed by Sri Gopal Chandra Naskar, who is clerk of Ms. Mekhala Kanji, taken on record. Service, along with a covering letter, was also effected upon the Respondent by hand by one L. Nazeer Ahmad. Despite service, none appears to represent the Respondent.

¶12

Learned DRT has dismissed the O.A. filed by the Appellant Bank for recovery of Rs.11,67,674.00 on 28^th May, 2018. I have gone through the impugned judgment and find that Learned DRT has framed two questions for determination; (1) Whether the Appellant Bank has proved its claim, as claimed in the O.A. against the Defendant? and (2) To what relief?

¶13

As far as finding on the point No. 1 is concerned, it is rather shocking to note that the Learned Presiding Officer has not recorded any reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove its case. Although the provisions of CPC, as such, are not applicable in this proceedings, but, at the same time, provisions of

¶14

¶15

Order 20 of the CPC should have been looked into and verified by the Learned Presiding Officer before passing the final order. A judgment must be a reasoned one wherein it is expected that issues or points for consideration must have been noted down, thereafter the Tribunal should have considered the material or evidence available on record and recorded its finding as to whether the Appellant has successfully made out its case or not. But simply giving an outright finding to the effect that the Appellant has not been able to prove its case is nothing but an arbitrary exercise of power by the Learned DRT which cannot be appreciated within the four corners of law.

¶16

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Brijmani Devi -vs- Pappu Kumar, reported in (2022) 4 SCC497 held as under:

¶17

“On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, wherein after referring to number of judgments this Court summarised at para 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under:

¶18

32.1. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

¶19

32.2. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶20

32.3. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶21

32.4. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicia quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

¶22

¶23

32.5. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions base on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

¶24

32.6. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the Judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve o common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant fact have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.

¶25

32.7 Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶26

32.8. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

¶27

32.9. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

¶28

32.10. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the Judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor19) 32.11. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part "due process". “34. The Latin maxim “cessantic ratione legis cessat ipsa lex” meaning “reason is the soul of the law, and when the reason of

¶29

¶30

any particular law ceases, so does the law itself”, is also apposite.”

¶31

Having considered the judgment as well as the legal proposition, I am of the firm view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

The appeal, being Appeal No. 137 of 2018, is allowed. Judgment and order dated 28^th May, 2018 is hereby set aside. Matter is remanded to the Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to state that an opportunity of hearing must be provided to the parties before concluding the trial.

¶34

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondent and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶35

File be consigned to Record room.

¶36

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶37

Dated: 15^th June, 2022 11/ac

State Bank of India v. Smt Vudem Devendram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Vudem Devendram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

United Bank of India and Anr. versus Sri Suman Saha

Biswanath Sengupta versus Citi Bank

Ms Sree Vishnu Khadsari Sugar Mill versus The Tamil Mercantiles Bank Ltd.

Andhra Bank and Anr. versus Sri Yelamanchili Venkata Satyanarayana Chowdary

O Jyothi and Anr. versus Union Bank of India and Anr.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus M S Heritage Retail India Pvt. Ltd.