Disposed

State Bank of India v. Ms Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. And Others

DRAT22 Aug 2023REGULAR APPEAL/82/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT observed that the appellant repeatedly sought time to file opposition to an IA without cause, indicating officer inaction. The court directed authorities to initiate proceedings against the erring officer. No adjournment was granted.

What did the court decide?

Direction to bank authorities to initiate proceedings against the erring officer and submit an action taken report.

State Bank of India versus Ms Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. And Others — DRAT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 82 of 2019

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

22.08.2023 State Bank of India & Another … Appellants -VsM/s. Mohta Technocrats Private Limited & Others … Respondents Mr. Ramesh Chandra Prusti with Ms. Alisha Kar, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Nimish Mishra with Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray and Mr. Gaurav Singh, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4

¶5

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶6

Matter is listed today for disposal of I.A. 118 of 2022. At the very outset time is sought by the Appellant for filing opposition to this I.A., which is opposed by the Learned Counsel for Respondents.

¶7

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶8

An order was passed by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court on 18^th March, 2021 in WP (C) 33291 of 2020 wherein the petitioner was directed to approach the DRT for seeking appropriate directions regarding OTS 2020 Scheme. This order was modified in Review Petitions No. 109 of 2021 and 79 of 2021 by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 26^th July, 2021 as the DRT became fuctus officio and appeals were pending before DRAT. Thereafter, I.A. was filed by the Respondents wherein continuously time is being sought by the Appellant to file opposition.

¶9

¶10

Today again time is sought on the ground that affidavit was sent by the Learned Counsel to the Auithorised Officer who did not return the same after signing the same, hence time may be granted.

¶11

Perusal of the order sheet would show that continuously time is being sought by the Appellant for filing opposition. It appears that for the reasons best known to the Appellant’s Officers they are not filling the opposition to the I.A. In such circumstances, appropriate action against the concerned officer of the Appellant, State Bank of India, should be taken by the appropriate authorities.

¶12

Let copy of this order be forwarded to the Zonal Manager as well as the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India, Cuttack with proper address by the Registry with a direction to initiate necessary proceedings against the concerned erring officer who intentionally did not file the opposition. Action taken by the authorities be also intimated to this Tribunal.

¶13

List on 16^th October, 2023 for disposal of I.A. 118 of 2022.

¶14

It is made clear that the action taken report should be submitted by the Respondents along with the affidavit of the concerned officer by the next date of listing. No adjournment shall be granted.

¶15

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶16

Dated 22^nd August, 2023 11/ac

State Bank of India v. Ms Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Mohta Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Marudhar Tracon P Ltd. versus India Sme Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Smt S Uma Rani and Ors. versus Chennuri Muralidhar Rao

Union of India versus Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Narayan Bhai Patel versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Ms Goutham Sai Granites Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Hdfc Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Anuj Textiles Private Limited