The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of an appeal filed by a Managing Director without an authorization resolution. The court directed the appellant to clarify the maintainability via affidavit on a specified date.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 299 of 2018)
(Arising out of O.A. 76 of 2017 in DRT-2, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
17.6.2022 M/s. Poorna Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
… Appellant
-VsState Bank of India … Respondent
Mr. Ch. Srinivasa Raju, Learned Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant, represented by its Managing Director, Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, against the common judgment passed on 17th September, 2018 by Learned Counsel DRT2, Hyderabad in O.A. 76 of 2017 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (Old O.A. 74 of 1996 on the file of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore) and O.A. 263 of 2006 whereby the Learned Tribunal allowed O.A. 76 of 2017, and dismissed O.A. 263 of 2006 with a direction to the Defendant No. 1 (Appellant before this Appellate Tribunal) to put in Court fee to the tune of Rs.11,87,426.00, as would appear from the Memo of Appeal. Only one appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment.
It would be appropriate to mention that both the Original Applications; O.A. 76 of 0f 2017 and O.A. 263 of 2006 were clubbed together and decided by one judgment. As there are two independent proceedings, one appeal could not be filed against two matters though both the matters were decided by one common judgment.
2
Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank preliminarily raised objection regarding maintainability of the appeal as far as it is preferred through one Sri S. Ravi Shankar, alleging himself to be the Managing Director of the Appellant Company though no Resolution, �authorizing Sri S. Ravi Shankar to prefer the instant appeal, has not been filed. Further objection is also raised regarding non-payment of Court fee in compliance of the orders of the Learned DRT as well as before this Appellate Tribunal.
Before passing any orders, it would be appropriate to offer an opportunity to the Appellant to show as to how one appeal is maintainable against the impugned judgment wherein two Original Applications have been disposed. Appellant may also clarify with regard to maintainability of the present appeal, as has been agitated by the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Appellant is directed to make his submission by way of an affidavit on the 19th of July, 2022; advance copy whereof be supplied to the Respondent Bank. Reply, if any, be filed by the Respondent Bank on or before the next date of listing with advance copy to the Appellant.
List the matter on 19th July, 2022.
It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted in any case whatsoever it may be as the matter is quiet old.
Dated: 17th June, 2022 12/ac
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal challenging a judgment disposing of two original applications is maintainable when filed by a single appeal without clubbing.
Whether the appeal is maintainable when preferred through a representative who has not filed an authorization resolution.
M/s. Poorna Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
State Bank of India
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
