Allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr K Selvam

DRAT13 Mar 2024REGULAR APPEAL/36/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the bank's appeal against the DRT's dismissal of its OA and IA due to premeditated error where trial was concluded yet dismissal occurred without hearing. The impugned order was set aside and matter restored for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.12.2017 set aside. IA 1180/2017 and OA 48/2014 restored to file for reconsideration.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Mr K Selvam — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

RA 36/2018

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 13^th of March, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

RA 36/2018

¶6

(OA 48/2014 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s Indian Overseas Bank, Chidambaram Branch, No.8 & 9, West Car Street, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District 608 001.

¶9

……Appellant Bank

¶10

And

¶11

Mr. K. Selvam, S/o R. Kaliyaperumal, No.44, Main Road, Keelachavadi Village, Thillaividangan Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore

¶12

….. Respondent

¶13

Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s Ananda Gomathy & Co.

¶14

Respondent remained ex parte.

RA 36/2018

ORDER

This Appeal is preferred under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due

¶19

to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against order dated 27.12.2017 wherein Tribunal below dismissed OA No.48/2014.

¶20

Respondent, in spite of service of notice, remained absent and set ex

¶21

parte .

¶22

Heard advocate for appellant bank.

¶23

As seen from impugned order dated 27.12.2017, it is clear that IA No.1180/2017 is posted for enquiry as last chance, but, it appears junior counsel for appellant sought time on the ground that senior is out of station and Tribunal below while refusing adjournment as matter was posted as last chance dismissed OA along with IAs. The very order itself speaks that said IA is posted for enquiry as last chance.

¶24

It is not in dispute that in main OA trial is concluded and it is coming up for arguments. When that is the case, dismissing OA by impugned order dated 27.12.2017 is unwarranted. I can understand if Tribunal below dismissed interlocutory application i.e., IA 1180/2017 and decided OA on merits in which trial is already concluded. But, unfortunately, through impugned order OA is

¶25

¶26

RA 36/2018

¶27

dismissed and consequently IAs are dismissed as if OA is coming for arguments

¶28

as last chance. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for appellant, impugned order

¶29

cannot be sustained as it is passed without application of mind.

¶30

Advocate for appellant bank sought for remand of the matter for fresh

¶31

consideration.

¶32

On a perusal of material papers, I am of the considered view impugned

¶33

order dated 27.12.2017 is not legal and cannot be sustained.

¶34

For the above reasons, Appeal RA 36/2018 is allowed without costs. Impugned order dated 27.12.2017 is set aside. Tribunal below shall restore IA

¶35

1180/2017 and OA 48/2014 to file and decide them in accordance with law.

¶36

9. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶37

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 13^th March, 2024)

¶38

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr K Selvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. Mr K Selvam

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 Bank versus S.S. Impex

Ms Over Drives rep by Mr Prop Mr Sundar Raj versus Union Bank of India

C Punniyamoorthy versus a O Central Bank of India and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Gurubasayya & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Umesh Babu & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Shri.Mahaveer Chand Kothari & Ors.