Dismissed

M/s Kalyani Logistics Represented by its Proprietor Sri Diwakar M. Shetty v. Canara Bank

DRAT19 Nov 2024MISC APPEAL/28/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging an impugned order permitting attachment before judgment. The Tribunal held that summons sent to the address provided in the loan application were validly served as per record, finding the Appellant had purposely avoided them. Consequently, the attachment order was upheld, adhering to natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order confirming attachment before judgment was upheld; pending IAs were closed.

M/s Kalyani Logistics Represented by its Proprietor Sri… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 19^th of November, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

M.A:28/2023

¶5

(IA 1255/2022 in OA 1545/2019 on the file of DRT- I, Bengaluru)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

M/s. Kalyani Logistics, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Diwakar, M. Shetty, S/o Mahabala Shetty, Aged about 76 years No. 18/D, 2^nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru – 560 058

¶8

….Appellant

¶9

AND

¶10

Canara Bank, SME Branch, Preenya, Bengaluru – 560 058

¶11

…..Respondent

¶12

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. S.A. Arun Babu Counsel for Respondent : Ms. A. Abirami

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 1255/2022 in OA 1545/2019 by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Bengaluru, on 10.04.2023.

¶16

Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the Appellant was not served with summons in the OA and in the Petition filed for attachment before judgement in IA 1552/2021. Without giving an opportunity to contest, the property had been attached before judgement. He filed IA 1255/2022 to recall the order dated 08.09.2021 and to permit the Appellant to contest the Application. Without considering the submission of non-service of notice, the Application was dismissed. Challenging the dismissal order, this Appeal is filed. He further submitted that the Order passed in IA 1552/2021, without service of notice, is against the natural justice and law, and thus, he prayed for

¶17

¶18

setting aside the order passed by Tribunal in IA 1552/2021

¶19

by allowing this Appeal.

¶20

In reply, Ms. T. Venmani representing Ms. A. Abirami,

¶21

Counsel for Respondent opposed this Appeal.

¶22

Heard Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent and perused the records.

¶23

From the impugned order, it is found that, the Appellant’s case was that the Appellant availed credit facility of Rs.50 Lakhs, in 2014. Appellant Company was forced to lockdown due to economic downturn and COVID19 pandemic. The Appellant Company was a sister concern of Rima Transformers and Conductors Private Limited and

¶24

it operated from the same premise, and shutdown on 01.12.2018. This fact is known to the Bank as various cases in OA 1053/2019, WP No. 8576/2021 and WP No. 1469/2022 were filed. On being informed by one of his

¶25

¶26

acquaintances about the same, Appellant immediately approached its Advocate; by the time, the Appellant had already been set ex parte . Therefore, this Application in IA 1255/2022 was filed.

¶27

With regard to the service of summons, it is clearly stated in the order that the summons had been sent to Appellant twice through registered post with acknowledgement due. Since, the Appellant purposely avoided the service of summons, paper publication was effected on 05.02.2021, and it was held that, Appellant was not diligent enough to participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal.

¶28

The attachment before judgement order was not passed on the date of Application. The Appellant was directed to provide security equivalent to OA claim amount on or before 26.11.2021. Since security was not furnished, attachment before judgement order was passed by allowing

¶29

the Application in IA 1552/2021.

¶30

¶31

It is not the case of Appellant that the summons in OA and Notice in IA had been taken to a different address than that of the address given in the loan application. It seems that the summons and notice had been taken to the address of the Appellant given in the loan application. It is the duty of the Appellant to ensure that the information with regard to any change of address would be given to the Bank so that the Bank would be in a position to send summons/notice to the changed address. When that was not done in this case, the Appellant cannot claim that the summons had been sent to wrong address and he had not received the summons.

¶32

The analysis of the order passed by Tribunal below shows that the order was passed, on considering the relevant factual and legal aspects, therefore, the order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Bengaluru, does not suffer from any infirmity and it is confirmed.

¶33

¶34

In the result , the Appeal in M.A:28/2023 is dismissed.

¶35

Both parties shall bear their own costs . All pending IAs, if

¶36

any, stand closed.

¶37

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 19th of November, 2024]

¶38

[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan]

¶39

CHAIRPERSON

¶40

M/s Kalyani Logistics Represented by its Proprietor Sri Diwakar M. Shetty v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Kalyani Logistics Represented by its Proprietor Sri Diwakar M. Shetty v. Canara Bank

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

S Janardhanan versus Federal Bank & 4ors

D Vaithiyalingam versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Murugan Coir Industry and Anr. versus Canara Bank

Iqra Educational and Charitable Trust versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Achara Vyapar

Hsbc Bank versus Neeraj Kumar Ojha