Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson of the DRAT, listed the appellant's appeal along with the respondent bank's cross-appeal, both challenging a DRAT order dated 12.12.2017 that directed the DRT to determine the debt due on the date of the applicant's resignation. The appeal was listed for hearing on 20.06.2022.
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. 84 of 2015) (Arising out of T.A. 66 of 2014 in DRT-1, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
22.03.2022 Basant Lall Shaw … Appellant Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & 6 Others … Respondents Mr. Radhey Shyam Tiwary, Learned Counsel for Appellant/Defendant No.6 None for Respondents
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
At the outset, Learned Counsel submits that the Bank has also filed an appeal against the impugned judgment which was registered as Appeal No. 56 of 2018 (Tender No. 118 of 2015).
Let the present appeal be listed along with the appeal filed by the Respondent Bank, being Appeal No. 56 of 2018 (Tender No. 118 of 2015).
It appears that this Tribunal had passed an order on the 12th of December, 2017 to the following effect :
“Waiver application is under consideration. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
The applicant is required to deposit 75% of the amount of debt due towards pre-deposit. There is a provision seeking for waiver of pre-deposit.
The applicant is aggrieved by clause (c) of the order passed in T.A No. 66 of 2014 dated 25.05.2015, which reads as follows:-
“(c) The defendant Nos. 2 and 6 are jointly severally liable to pay the amount due as on the date of their resignation from the
2
Directorship minus the amount recovered by sale of the hypothecated assets during the pendency of this proceeding.”
Learned counsel for the applicant states that he resigned from Directorship on 22.10.1987. On the said date there was no debt due.
On perusal of the order it reveals that the debt against the Applicant has not been determined, which ought to have been determined. Without determination of debt, it would be difficult to dispose of the application under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act.
In this circumstance, I direct the DRT to determine the amount due on the date of resignation of applicant.
Let Registry send copy of this order to the concerned DRT for determination of debt due in the light of the observation made above.
DRT is expected to do the needful within a period of one month.” Subsequently, on 6th April, 2018 this Tribunal records that Appellant has not filed copy of the order dated 12th December, 2017 before the DRT and an opportunity was granted to the Appellant for compliance.
Copy of the order was supplied to the DRT-1, Kolkata, as is evident from the Receipt Letter dated 3rd May, 2018. But till date compliance report has not been received from DRT-1, Kolkata.
DRT-1, Kolkata is hereby directed to submit the compliance report of the order dated 12th December, 2017 within a period of six weeks positively.
Office is hereby directed to communicate this order to DRT-1, Kolkata immediately.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant is also directed to communicate this order to DRT-1, Kolkata.
Let this appeal appear along with Appeal No. 56 of 2018 on 20th June, 2022.
Sd/-
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 22nd March, 2022 04/ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present DRAT appeal requires determination of the impugned order of December 12, 2017 regarding the DRT's mandatory compliance.
Whether the creditor bank is required to file a cross-appeal against the same impugned order.
Basant Lall Shaw
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
15 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
