Allowed

Prakashbhai Vasantbhai Patel and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

DRAT28 Mar 2023REGULAR APPEAL/63/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the lower DR-T judgment because it was erroneous to allow the original application without considering the appellants' reply. The court instructed a de novo disposal of the remaining claims against specific appellants within three months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned judgment; directed DRT-II Ahmedabad to dispose of T.A. 218 of 1995 afresh against remaining defendants within three months.

Prakashbhai Vasantbhai Patel and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 63/2013

¶3

Between

¶4

Prakashbhai Vasantbhai Patel & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank of Baroda & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Rohit Gupta along with Ms Nikita Vardhan & Mr Vishal Tiwary, i/b M/s. Kanga & Co., Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr C. J. Daveson, i/b M/s. Global Law Offices, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶8

-: Order dated: 28/03/2023:-

¶9

This appeal is filed by the original Defendants Nos. 2 and 5 to 7 and the legal representatives of the deceased original Defendants Nos.3 and 4. Subsequent to filing the appeal, the second Defendant also died and his legal representatives have been brought on record. The Appellants impugned the judgment and order of the Ld. Presiding Officer in T.A. No. 218 of 1995 wherein the Original Application was allowed as against the Appellants and the first Defendant which is a company which has gone into liquidation. The total amount which was claimed in the applications was ₹ 2,03,34,099.08 and from the impugned judgment and order, it is adequately clear that a sum of ₹1,28,75,000/- was already recovered from the Official Liquidator after the sale of some properties. It is also submitted that some other properties were also sold for a sum of ₹35 lakhs recovered from out of that. The first Defendant company went into liquidation and is also

¶10

¶11

not in appeal. The main reason stated for allowing the O.A. by the Ld. Presiding Officer is that there was no contest by the Defendants since they did not file any written statements. However, it is pertinent to note that the Appellants had filed Exhibit 21 to an interlocutory application in which they have controverted most of the averments made in the plaint which was originally filed as s Civil Suit No. 490 of 1987 before the City Civil Court, Nadia and subsequently transferred and re-filed as T.A. No. 218 of 1995 before the D.R.T. –II, Ahmedabad. The Appellants have also filed a pursis probably during the arguments, or thereafter praying that the reply filed at Exhibit-21 be considered a written statement. But interestingly, the Ld. Presiding Officer has not mentioned anything about pursis or prayer made by the Appellants to consider their reply to the interlocutory application as a written statement.

¶12

The D.R.T. is not governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and it is true that the written statement could not have been accepted out of time, but even prior to the transfer of the case from the Civil Court to the D.R.T. there was a reply in place. There was no harm in considering the contentions raised in that reply for the purpose of controverting the averments made in the plaint. Whether the reply is to an interlocutory or the plaint is not very material. The fact remains that the Defendants had raised certain contentions and it was incumbent from the D.R.T. to have answered those contentions in the final order made in T.A. No. 218 of 1995. The order would indicate that there was no defence raised by the Defendants and therefore, the O.A. has been allowed on admission. This stand taken by the Ld.

¶13

¶14

Presiding Officer appears to be erroneous and therefore, the appeal is to be allowed the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2010 to be set aside. The Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T.-II, Ahmedabad is directed to dispose of the T.A. No. 218 of 1995 afresh considering the reply filed as Exhibit 21 as a reply or written statement to the original plaint and address all contentions raised in that reply and dispose of the matter afresh. It is, however, made clear that the proceedings against Defendant No.1 company stand concluded and shall not be reopened. The contentions raised by the rest of Defendants alone shall be addressed and answered by the D.R.T. The appeal is a very old one, the Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

¶16

mks-29

¶17

Prakashbhai Vasantbhai Patel and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakashbhai Vasantbhai Patel and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

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

Dbm Geotechnics Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Assest Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. versus Quick N Safe Service Private Limited & Ors.

Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. versus Image Plus(India) Private Limited & Ors.

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. In the matter between Yes Bank versus Belief Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi versus Bank of Baroda