Allowed

Ramakrishnaiah Muli v. State Bank of India

DRAT29 Mar 2023REGULAR APPEAL/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an interim application for additional evidence in an auction sale dispute. The court relied on account statements to find the ground for setting aside the sale sufficient, though the main appeal remains listed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed subject to payment of court fees of Rs. 5000/-; Respondents granted leave to file rebuttal within three weeks.

Ramakrishnaiah Muli versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 24 of 2022)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. No. 32 of 2018 in DRT Visakhapatnam)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

29.03.2023 Ramakrishnaiah Muli … Appellant -VsState Bank of India & ors Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. A.K. Dhandhania, Learned Senior Counsel, Md. D. Khan, Learned Counsel, Mr. K. Hussain, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

I.A. No. 21 of 2023 Application by the Appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C for filing additional evidence as per Para 7 of the of the Application.

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. DRT holding that the compliance of Rule 9(3) and 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 were not made by the Auction purchaser. Accordingly, sale was set aside. It is further stated that the compliances were made by the Appellant but the relevant documents could not be filed as the Appellant

¶11

¶12

was residing at United Kingdom. It is further submitted that hearing before Ld. DRT was completed. Thereafter, Application for reopening of hearing was made which was not allowed. It is submitted that since the Appellant has complied the provisions of Rule 9(3) and 9(4), hence, the relevant documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the Appeal.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3/ mortgagor opposed the prayer and submits that the Appellant had full opportunity to file the paper before the Ld. DRT which has not been availed by him. It is further submitted that the Appellant is trying to set up a new case in Appeal.

¶14

Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C provides for filing of

¶15

additional evidence in Appeal which reads as under:

¶16

27. Production of additional evidence in Appellant Court – (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, the Appellate Court, but if-

¶17

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

¶18

(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or)

¶19

(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause. The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined

¶20

The Appellate Court may allow such evidence or

¶21

¶22

(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.

¶23

Main ground for setting aside the sale by the DRT was noncompliance of Rule 9(3) and 9(4) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)Rules 2002. It is a matter of record which can only be ascertained from the statement of Account of the Bank. Other documents as mentioned in the list are relating to the payment. Accordingly, I find the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 21 of 2023 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) to be deposited in favour of the State Legal Services Authorities. Respondents should be at liberty to file the rebuttal if any, within three weeks.

¶24

List on 14^th July, 2023 for hearing of Appeal.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶26

Dated 29^th March, 2023 11/tp

Ramakrishnaiah Muli v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnaiah Muli 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency versus Saradambika Power Plant Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda and Ors. versus M/s Sunway Infrastructure Services Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Cygnus Equipments and Rentals Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Sri Peddiboyina Venkateswara Vara Prasad

Punjab National Bank versus Bolin Chetia

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. and Ors. versus Manoj Kumar