Partly allowed

Rajnish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRAT20 Feb 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In I.A. 54 of 2023, the Bench dismissed the appellant's prayer for issuance of show cause notice and mandatory injunction for non-compliance with a specific order. The Bench also allowed part of Misc. Application Diary No. 575 of 2023 for clerical corrections while declining corrections affecting the merits.

What did the court decide?

I.A. 54 of 2023 dismissed. Misc. Application allowed to the extent of allowing necessary typographical corrections in the judgment dated 31st August, 2022.

Rajnish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

M.A. Diary No. 575 of 2022

¶3

¶4

Appeal No. 85 of 2017 (Arising out of S.A. 09 of 2025 of DRT-I, Kolkata)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

20.02.2023 M/s. Rajnish Infrastructure Private Limited … Appellant -VsState Bank of India & 8 Others … Respondents Mr. Arindam Banerjee with Mr. Souritra Ganguly and Mr. Ram Maroo, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶7

Ms. Mekhala Kanji, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

I.A. 54 of 2023

¶10

This application is moved by the Appellant with a prayer for issuance of show cause as to why the Authorised Officer of the Bank should not be appropriately dealt with for deliberate and willful violation of the judgment and order dated 31^st August, 2022 and further for a mandatory injunction directing the Authorised Officer to forthwith make the payment as per the judgment of the DRAT, Kolkata dated 31^st August, 2022.

¶11

Appeal No. 85 of 2017 against the judgment of Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Kolkata passed in S.A. 09 of 2015 was allowed vide order dated 31^st August, 2022 wherein direction was issued to Respondents No. 1 and 2 to refund Rs.1.95 crore to the Appellant with interest at the rate applicable to the FDR of the Bank. Now, by moving the instant I.A., Appellant wants that this Appellate Tribunal should execute its own order. It is settled legal proposition that DRT has jurisdiction to execute the order passed by the DRT or DRAT, as the

¶12

¶13

case may be. Hence I do not find any ground for issuance of any further direction to the Respondents.

¶14

Further, Learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for issuance of notice of contemp. No specific provision could be shown wherein notice of contempt can be issued in a matter where appeal is allowed and the Bank has not complied the orders. Legal provisions are there for execution of the order. Hence, I do not find any merit in the instant application. Accordingly, I.A. 54 of 2023 is dismissed.

¶15

The instant Misc. Application Diary No. 575 of 2022 has been filed for correction in the judgment dated 31^st August, 2022 wherein in the 4^th line of paragraph 3 wherein in place of “Appellant No. 1” the word “Respondent No. 2” should be written and instead of “287.00” Rs.287.00 be inserted. These are typographical mistakes which need to be corrected.

¶16

As far as correction in 2^nd and 3^rd lines of paragraph 11 is concerned, such correction would relate back to the merits of the matter and are not in the nature of typographical error. Accordingly, this prayer is declined.

¶17

Accordingly the misc. application to this extent is allowed and necessary corrections are made today.

¶18

The Misc. Application Diary No. 575 of 2022, accordingly is disposed of.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶20

Dated: 20^th February, 2023 17/ac

Rajnish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnish Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Epitome petrochemical Pvt. Ltd.

Ghosh Brothers Electonics P Ltd. versus Idbi Bank

B Srinivasa Rao versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Monika Ojha And Ors.

M S Neemax Enterprises versus Union Bank of India

Shreoshi Dutta versus Uco Bank