Partly allowed

R Jayanthi v. Union Bank of India

DRAT2 Aug 2023MISC APPEAL/37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant filed an application under Section 17A(2) RDB Act seeking transfer of Securitisation Application SA 222/2022 from DRT Coimbatore to DRT Chennai due to apprehension of lack of fair justice. The court found allegations baseless but ordered withdrawal from Coimbatore and transfer to DRT Madurai to avoid embarrassment to the Presiding Officer.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application SA 222/2022 ordered withdrawn from DRT Coimbatore and transferred to DRT Madurai for disposal on merits.

R Jayanthi versus Union Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 2^nd of August, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶6

[SA 222/2022 on the file of Coimbatore]

¶7

Between

¶8

R. Jayanthi, Aged 48 Years, W/o Rathinasamy, No.2/49, Kosavampalyam Road, Palladam – 641 664 Tirupur District.

¶9

….Appellant

¶10

AND

¶11

The Authorised Officer, Asset Recovery Branch, Union Bank of India, P.. No.8, No.235, First Floor, Oppanaka Street, Coimbatore - 641 001.

¶12

(Address changed recently & present address given above)

¶13

¶14

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶15

M/s. ES. R. ES Mills, Rep. by its Proprietor, S.R. Shanmugam, S/o S. Ramasamy, S. F. No.96/2B, Sottikadu Thottom, Samigoundampalayam, KN Puram, Palladam, Tiruppur District – 641 662.

¶16

V. Eswaramoorthy, S/o R. Velusamy, No. 4/75, Karuppangoundanpalayam Road, Veerapandi Post, Tiruppur- -641 605.

¶17

…..Respondents

¶18

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. P. M. Duraiswamy Respondents No.1 : M/s. Srinath Sridevan

¶19

¶20

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Application is filed invoking Section 17 A (2) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as RDB Act) for transfer of SA 222/2022 from DRT, Coimbatore to any of DRTs at Chennai.

¶23

Brief facts leading to this Application are as follows:-

¶24

Applicant herein filed Securitisation Application

¶25

SA 222/2022, challenging the measures initiated by 1^st Respondent and said SA is filed along with Interlocutory Applications. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, did not grant any interim relief to Applicant. On account of that, Applicant contended that she apprehends that she may not get fair justice before DRT, Coimbatore, and sought for transfer. In the Application, several allegations are made, and therefore, remarks were called for from Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, by enclosing the

¶26

¶27

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶28

Affidavit of Applicant, for which, detailed remarks are submitted through Letter dated 21.07.2023.

¶29

Learned Presiding Officer refuted all the allegations,

¶30

and contended that there is no iota of truth in the allegations made in the Affidavit, and they are only made for the purpose of Transfer Petition.

¶31

First Respondent also filed Counter disputing the contentions raised in Transfer Application, and according to first Respondent, the Application is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings.

¶32

Heard both sides.

¶33

Advocate for Applicant submitted, as Applicant lost faith in DRT, Coimbatore, for fair justice, it is necessary to withdraw SA 222/2022 from its file. He reiterated all the contentions raised in the Application to support his arguments. He also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble

¶34

¶35

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶36

Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder

¶37

Gurcharan Singh Vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust &

¶38

Ors ., reported in CDJ 2008 SC 049 .

¶39

Advocate for 1^st Respondent contended that Applicant made reckless allegations against Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, and it is only far-fetched attempt to prolong recovery proceedings. He submitted Hon’ble Supreme Court in recent decision in Anupam Ghosh and

¶40

Arn. Vs. Faiz Mohammed and Anr., observed that, nowadays, there is a tendency to make allegations against Judicial Officers whenever the orders are passed against a litigant and the orders are not liked by the concerned litigant and such practice has to be deprecated as it amounts to obstructing the administration of justice.

¶41

I have perused material papers including remarks of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore, and judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on by both parties.

¶42

¶43

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶44

As rightly pointed out by Advocate for Bank, the allegations are baseless; simply because Interlocutory Applications are not taken up for hearing, it cannot be inferred that Learned Presiding Officer has developed prejudice towards Applicant. However, as Learned Presiding Officer has expressed that it is an embarrassment for him to dispose of the case after leveling such allegations, I am of the view that Securitisation Application SA 222/2022 pending before DRT, Coimbatore, can be withdrawn, but not due to the reasons stated in Transfer Application, but to avoid embarrassment to Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore.

¶45

In view of above, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, SA 222/2022 is withdrawn from the file of DRT, Coimbatore, and transferred to DRT, Madurai, for disposal, on merits, in accordance with law.

¶46

¶47

MA (SA) 37/2022 (T)

¶48

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, is requested to dispose of SA 222/2022, after giving opportunity to both parties, as expeditiously as possible, and both parties shall co-operate with DRT, Madurai.

¶49

Appeal MA (SA) 37/2022 (T) is ordered accordingly, with no order as to costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶50

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 2^nd of August, 2023]

¶51

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON

¶52

R Jayanthi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Jayanthi v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M s Sri Kumaran Tex Prop Mrs R Arulselvi versus Bank of Baroda

H Mohammed Ansari versus Indian Overseas Bank

Kowshik Rahja Muthuchezhiyan versus Union Bank of India

Leena Ranjini versus State Bank of India

Platinum Trade Centre versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank versus Mrs K Valarmathi