The Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the DRT's rejection of an interim impleadment application filed by the appellant against a bank proceedings. Finding the delay intended to hinder proceedings, the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission.
Misc. Appeal dy. No. 788 of 2023 is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 788 of 2023 (Arising out of I.A. 2252/2019 in OA 1055 of 2018 in DRT-Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
22.11.2023
Sri Gogineni Khyathi Krishna … Appellant Vs.
The CM, Indian Overseas Bank & Ors . ….. Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendu Chakraborty , ld. Advocate.
For Respondents :
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order dated 25.06.2023 passed in I.A. 2252 of 2019 in O.A. 1055 of 2018 whereby learned DRT has dismissed the I.A. It appears from record that O.A. was filed by the bank against respondent no. 2 to 5. Pending proceeding of the O.A., an IA was filed by the present appellant before learned DRT for impleadment on certain grounds that defendant no.2 who is father of the appellant purchased the property in dispute out of the income derived from Hindu undivided family properties and later formed a company and mortgaged the same to the secured creditor bank for availing financial assistance in favour of the company. The ancestral property was mortgaged without consent of the appellant and without prior NOC from the Directors.
There is nothing on record to show that the property was ancestral property. Further, learned DRT has recorded specifically in the order dated 25.06.2023 that defendants have
1
taken loan for the benefit of the family. The defendants have not taken loan for immoral purpose. Being son of the borrower, the petitioner of the I.A. is also bound to repay the loan taken by his father.
It appears that financial assistance was granted by the bank in the year 2013; O.A. was filed in 2018 which is pending and I.A. was filed by the present appellant before DRT in 2018 and appeal was preferred in 2023, which show that the main purpose of the appellant is to delay the O.A. proceeding. Present appeal is also filed with an application for condonation of delay.
Having considered the submission of the appellant and the finding recorded by the learned DRT in the order dated 25.06.2023, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
O R D E R
Misc. Appeal dy. No. 788 of 2023 is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy be also forwarded to the appellant and respondent also to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 day of November, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 22.11.2023 08 /pkb
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the DRT's dismissal of the impleadment application suffers from any illegality or irregularity making it liable to be set aside.
Sri Gogineni Khyathi Krishna
The CM, Indian Overseas Bank
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
