Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Bharat C Vedant

DRAT8 Nov 2023REGULAR APPEAL/14/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside an order of the DRIT which dismissed an application for receipt of original documents. The Tribunal held that the RDB Act mandates only true copies at filing, not originals, and restored the dismissed original application for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order setting aside IA No. 258/2019 was set aside, and the dismissal of the O.A. No. 333/2017 was restored to file.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Bharat C Vedant — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 14/2020

¶3

Between

¶4

Karur Vysya Bank … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bharat C Vedant & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Shaikh Sameer, i/b M/s. Consulta Juris, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

-: Order dated: 08/11/2023:-

¶8

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 22.04.2019 in dismissing Interim Application (I.A.) No. 258/2019 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 333/2017 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) which also resulted in the dismissal of the O.A. itself on the very same date. The Appellant had filed I.A. No. 258/2019 with an affidavit to receive the original document relied upon by the Appellant in support of the original application. It seems that the original application filed by the Appellant was accompanied by the true copies of the document relied upon by the bank. By way of filing I.A. No. 258/2019, the original document of those true copies was also sought to be produced along with an affidavit.

¶9

The Ld. Presiding Officer in the impugned order held that the document and the affidavit have to be produced along with the O.A. and not at a later stage since sub-section 10 (A) of section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB “Act” for short) insist on filing an affidavit in support of the pleading with the documents relied upon by the Applicant. Therefore, in consequence of non-compliance of that of sub-section 10 (A) the mandate under

¶10

¶11

sub-section 10 (B) will have to follow and hence, the application cannot be allowed.

¶12

It appears that the Ld. Presiding Officer was labouring under a misunderstanding of the entire provision. The sub-section 3 to section 19 insists only on the production of true copies of the documents relied upon by the Applicant. The original documents need not be produced at the time of filing the application. The Appellant has already complied with the production of the true copies of the documents and an affidavit is also filed in support of the pleadings together with the application. Thus, sub-section 10 (A) has already been complied with in letter and spirit by the Appellant/Applicant. What was required to be received by way of I.A. No. 258/2019 was the originals of those documents relied upon by the Applicant which does not run contra to the mandate under sub-section 10 (A) of section 19 of the RDB Act. And therefore, it ought to have been allowed. The Ld. Presiding Officer is in error in not allowing that application. A Tribunal or Court of justice cannot be pedantic in its approach while rendering justice.

¶13

Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. I.A. No. 258/2019 for receipt of the original documents together with an affidavit is to be accepted and the dismissal of the appeal of the O.A. No. 333/2017 is also set aside and it is restored to file. The Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to dispose of the O.A. No. 333/2017 in accordance with law.

¶14

psa-20

¶15

Karur Vysya Bank v. Bharat C Vedant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Bharat C Vedant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Apurva Annasaheb Mohite versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.

M/s Arham Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Krishnakant R Lotia versus Bank and Baroda and Ors.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Jitendra Gupta

Union Bank of India versus Ram v Tyagarajan

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited