M S Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

I.A. No. 128/2022 In Appeal Dy. No. 238/2022 Date: 16.06.2022

M/s Vee Aar Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Shri Manoj Chopra, appellant in person, who is also an advocate, states that reply, which has been filed by the respondent-Bank to the application of the appellant, has been received by him, but he does not want to file any rejoinder to the same and prefers to argue the matter, as the DRT Dehradun has fixed the matter for hearing on 20.06.2022.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the cause of action had arisen in the jurisdiction of DRT, Lucknow and not in the Jurisdiction of the DRT, Dehradun in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has referred to the objection, which has been filed by him today in court and has argued that the matter was initially instituted at DRT Jabalpur in the year 1998, because the territorial jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar was with the DRT, Jabalpur, which was numbered as O.A. 51/1998. It is contended that after establishment of DRT, Allahabad, the territorial jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar was transferred to DRT, Allahabad. Accordingly, the matter was transferred to DRT, Allahabad and the case was renumbered as T.A. 1361/2000. The copy of order dated 20.12.2000 has been appended as annexure no. 4 to the objection filed by the respondent-Bank. The learned counsel has further argued that after establishment of DRT, Lucknow, the territorial jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar was transferred to DRT, Lucknow and the matter was transferred and numbered as T.A. 270/2002. Copy of order dated 28.02.2002 has been appended as annexure no. 5 to the said objection. The learned counsel has also argued that since the application

under section 19 pertains to the District Utham Singh Nagar, which is a District of the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, on establishment of DRT, Dehradun, the said suit was transferred from DRT, Lucknow to DRT, Dehradun and the same was registered as TA 35/2021 on 12.02.2021. Copy of the order dated 12.02.2021 has been appended as annexure no. 6 to the said objection. It is, thus, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that the said suit is pending for the last 24 years and has not yet been decided on merits on account of dilatory tactics being used by the defendants. He also contends that the averment of the applicant that the loan documents were executed at Lucknow is not correct and he has referred to Annexure-2 to the aforesaid objection, which is a letter dated 10.10.1992 of the applicant addressed to the Branch Manager, District Kashipur regarding execution of security documents by the applicants in favour of the State Bank of India. As such all the loan documents were executed at Kashipur, therefore, the averment made by the appellant with regard to the execution of loan documents at Lucknow is also not correct and is false.