Allowed

Bank of India v. Mr Sadanand Motilal Patil

DRAT4 Jul 2022REGULAR APPEAL/78/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order dismissing a debt recovery application and an amendment application. The Tribunal held that dismissing the applications in limine without considering their merits was inappropriate when the appellant did not seek an adjournment.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing O.A. No. 69/2018 and Interlocutory Application No. 425/2019 is set aside, and the applications are restored to the file for consideration on merits.

Bank of India versus Mr Sadanand Motilal Patil — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Appeal No. 78/2019

¶3

Between

¶4

Bank of India … Appellant/s V/s. Mr. SadanandMotiramPatil (Deceased) through …Respondent/s legal heirs.

¶5

Mr. B. Gopalkrishnana/w Mr. Nilesh Sunil Ghadge, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶6

Order dated: 04/07/2022:-

¶7

The Appellant Bank is before this Tribunal impugning the Order of the D.R.T., Pune in O.A. No. 69/2018 which was dismissed on 18.03.2019.

¶8

The facts, in brief, are thus-

¶9

The O.A. was filed by the Bank against the Respondent regarding the realization of the loan amount from the Respondent. There were certain infirmities in the O.A which needed to be corrected. And therefore, the Appellant filed Interlocutory Application no. 425/2019 to amend the O.A. The Ld. Presiding Officer vide the impugned order observed that seeking an adjournment is not a matter of right and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Standard Chartered Bank v/s DharminderBhohi&Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 341 dismissed the Original Application and also the Interlocutory Application for amendment.

¶10

The Respondent was served but none appeared and was, therefore, set ex-parte.

¶11

¶12

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appellant did not seek an adjournment of the hearing and therefore dismissal of the O.A. on the ground that the Appellant had sought an adjournment which could not be granted as a matter of right is erroneous. From the record, it is borne out that the Appellant wanted to amend the original application pending consideration. In fact, Interlocutory Application No. 425/2019 was not considered on its merits at all.An application for amendment can be filed by an Applicant at any stage of the proceedings but it is for the court to consider that on its merits to find out why it should be dismissed or allowed. Dismissing an application seeking amendment together with the original application in limine without going into the merits of either the Interlocutory Application or the Original Application does not appear to be appropriate, and therefore, this Appeal needs to be allowed.

¶14

Hence, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Pune dated 18.03.2019 dismissing the O.A. No. 69/2018 stands set aside and the O.A. is restored to the file. Interlocutory Application No. 425/2019 filed for amendment of the O.A. also is restored to the file and Ld. Presiding Officer is hereby directed to consider the Interlocutory Application first on its merits and thereafter consider the O.A.

¶15

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

mks-23

¶18

Bank of India v. Mr Sadanand Motilal Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Mr Sadanand Motilal Patil

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

Dilip B. Jiwrajka and Anr. versus Union Bank of India

Mr. Ashok B. Jivrajka and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Dilip B Jiwrajka & Ors. versus Corporation Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Shalimar Exhibitors

Raveena Anil Kapoor versus Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

Hema D Sukhwani versus Recovery Officer The Debt Recovery Tribunal II Ahmedabad and Anr.