Allowed

Multiple Educational and Manpower Development Trust v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT10 Apr 2024REGULAR APPEAL/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the DRT's dismissal of an amendment application for pleadings filed after the stipulated 45-day limit. The court allowed the appeal, holding that proposed amendments reflecting post-filing legal developments were necessary even though strict Rule 12 time limits existed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing amendment application is set aside and application for amendment of pleadings is allowed.

Multiple Educational and Manpower Development… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Appeal No. 87 of 2023

¶4

(Arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019 in DRT-III, Kolkata)

¶5

Order No. 15 10.4.2024 Multiple Educational & Manpower Development Trust & 9 Others … Appellants -VsKotak Mahindra Bank Limited … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Soham Bandopadhyay with Ms. Priyanka Kundu, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶7

Mr. Sarathi Dasgupta with Mr. Pratik Ghose, Mr. Avishek Roy Chowdhury, Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

Instant appeal has arisen against order dated 15^th March, 2021, passed by DRT-III, Kolkata, in I.A. 577 of 2021 arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019 dismissing the I.A. wherein prayer for amendment of the written statement was sought by the Appellants who are Defendants before the Learned DRT.

¶10

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

¶11

O.A. 189 0f 2019 was filed by the Respondent Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,40,88,199.00. Pending proceedings, written statement was filed by the Appellants on 16.12.2019. Thereafter an

¶12

¶13

application seeking permission for amendment was moved by the Appellants on the ground that after filing of the written statement certain developments have taken place regarding certain orders passed by NCLT, NCLAT and High Court and Supreme Court which was opposed by the Bank. Learned DRT rejected the amendment application on the ground that Rule 12 Sub rules (1), (2) and (3) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules provide for a time limit for 30 days and thereafter 15 days for filing written statement from the date of receipt of summons. Accordingly, after filing of the written statement, amendment application, which was filed much after 45 days, could not be entertained. Accordingly, Learned DRT dismissed I.A. 577 of 2021.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that the amendment application was filed with a ground that after filing of the written statement certain developments took place and certain orders were passed by NCLT, NCLAT and High Court and Supreme Court which are necessary to be brought on record so that the Appellants would be able to lead proper evidence.

¶15

Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that all the proposed amendments are matters of record which could have been filed by the Appellants in their evidence. There is no necessity of seeking amendment in the written statement. It is further submitted that all these orders, etc., have already been brought on record by the

¶16

¶17

Appellants by way of filing I.A.s hence there is no necessity for seeking amendment.

¶18

As far as legal interpretation of Rule 12 of DRT Rules is concerned it is not the case that written statement is not filed within the stipulated period, but as far as amendment to the pleadings is concerned, no doubt specific provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. are not applicable in DRT but basic principle of the same would apply before the DRT. Law of amendment is well settled in catena of judgments by The Hon’ble Apex Court that if by way of an amendment, an admission is not being withdrawn or a plea, which is time barred, is not being taken by the Appellant such amendment would be allowed by the Tribunal and the issue whether it is sought after 45 days or not would not come into play.

¶19

As far as impugned order is concerned, the proposed amendments are developments which took place after filing of the written statement. Copy of the orders have been filed by the Appellants along with some I.A.s but an I.A. cannot substitute a pleading. A party cannot be permitted to lead evidence on issue which is not pleaded. It is not in dispute that the developments took place after filing of the written statement between the parties. All the pleas which are being proposed to be taken by way of amendment are within the knowledge of the Respondent Bank. As such the Appellants are not withdrawing any admission made by them in their pleadings by way of proposed amendment.

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that in orders to finally dispose of the matter proposed amendments are necessary to be incorporated. Accordingly, appeal deserved to be allowed. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶22

O R D E R E D

¶23

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.3.2021 passed in I.A. 577 of 2021, arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019, for amendment of the written statement is set aside. Amendment application is allowed. Appellants are directed to amend the pleadings before the Learned DRT wherein Respondents herein would also be at liberty to file their opposition to the amended pleadings as per the directions to be issued by the Learned DRT.

¶24

Since this is an old O.A., Learned DRT-III, Kolkata is expected to decide expeditiously.

¶25

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶26

File be consigned to Record room.

¶27

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶28

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶29

Dated 10^th April, 2024 08/ac

Multiple Educational and Manpower Development Trust v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multiple Educational and Manpower Development Trust v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr Sudhanshu Sekhar Padhi

Uco Bank versus Kakali Sarkar and Ors.

Sandeep Kabra and Anr. versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Durgapur Corporation Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Shriram Housing Finance Limited versus Donthamsetti Alivelu

Multiple Educational and Manpower Dev. Trust & Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited