Disposed

T Vishwanadha Reddy and Others v. Central Bank of India

DRAT16 Dec 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata disposed of an appeal regarding the appellant's claim for production of seven documents from the respondent bank. The tribunal noted that some documents were filed by the bank but allowed a presumption if relevance is proved, directing the bank to file a supplementary affidavit with the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed with observations; Bank directed to file supplementary affidavit with DRT.

T Vishwanadha Reddy and Others versus Central Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Misc. Appeal Diary No. 947 of 2024

¶4

(Arising out of I.A. 146 of 2018 in O.A. 84 of 2006 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶5

Order No. 07

¶6

16.12.2024

¶7

T. Viswanadha Reddy & 2 Others … Appellants -VsCentral Bank of India & 10 Others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellant s

¶9

Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank

¶10

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶11

For Admission

¶12

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties at the ‘Admission’ stage and perused the records.

¶13

Instant appeal is preferred by the Appellants herein who are Defendants before the DRT-I, Hyderabad, in O.A. 84 of 2006 whereby the I.A. 146 of 2018 filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the Learned DRT.

¶14

Learned Counsel for Appellants would submit that the Appellants herein have moved an application demanding documents from the Bank which were in their possession. But the Learned DRT rejected the application holding that there is no necessity to summon the documents as made out.

¶15

During the course of hearing in the appeal, Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted a list of seven documents out of the list submitted before the Learned DRT which they wanted to be produced by the Bank.

¶16

¶17

In response, Mr. Chakrabarti, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank, produced copies of Property Inspection Report dated 15.10.2003, Valuation Report of one V. Harinath & Associates dated 22.9.2004 with annexure, Letter of Central Bank of India addressed to Mr. Chakilam Raghuram dated 10.11.2004 and copy of FIR in Case Crime No. 7/2006,Hyderabad City Police. It is submitted that only these documents are available with the Bank which are brought on record and copy of which have also been provided to the Learned Counsel for Appellants, Mr. Srinivas.

¶18

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties I find that the documents, which are in possession of the Respondent Bank out of the list of seven documents, are filed by the Bank. However, if the Appellants successfully prove that documents are relevant for the decision of the O.A. are in the possession of the Bank and have not been produced, Learned DRT would be at liberty to make out a presumption in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶20

Documents already filed in the appeal should be filed by the Bank by way of a supplementary affidavit before the Learned DRT with copy to the Appellants who would have the liberty to file rebuttal.

¶21

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

¶22

File be consigned to Record room.

¶23

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶24

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶25

Dated: 16^th December, 2024 01/ac

T Vishwanadha Reddy and Others v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Vishwanadha Reddy and Others v. Central Bank of India

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

Similar cases

Maa Kiran Devi Agro Foods Private Limited Company And Others versus Bank of Baroda

Sukamal Adhikari versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Mukesh Rajak versus Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited

P Ramesh Naidu versus Idbi Bank

G Ananthsena Reddy and Others versus Central Bank of India

K D Enterprise and Anr. versus Indian Bank