Allowed

Iob v. K Palanisamy Ors.

DRAT4 Apr 2025MISC APPEAL/130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the bank's appeal against observations made in an impugned order regarding signature forgery allegations. The Tribunal directed the Presiding Officer to dispose of the pending application for setting aside the ex parte order expeditiously before recording such observations or initiating investigations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.4.2012 set aside. Appeal MA No.130/2014 allowed. Direction to dispose of MA 56/2011 within three months expeditiously.

Iob versus K Palanisamy Ors. — Corruption | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 4^th day of April, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA 130/2014

¶5

(arising out of MA 56/2011 in OA 359/2004 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore)

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s Indian Overseas Bank Represented by its Chief Manager, ARM Branch, Coimbatore.

¶8

…..Appellant Bank

¶9

And

¶10

1. K. Palanisamy, No.9, P.R.G. Garden, Maniyakapalayam, Tirupur.

¶11

2. M/s Steffi International Door No.1/478, E, F I Floor, Moogambikai Nagar, Planavanchipalayam, Tirupur.

¶12

3. S. Duraipandi,

¶13

Door No.1/478, E, F, 1^st Floor, Moogambikai Nagar, Planavanchipalayam, Tirupur.

¶14

4. S. Murugesan, D.No.71F, Anna Nagar, Opp. Valliappais Garden, Gandhi Nagar, Palani.

¶15

¶16

5. Kamalam, Ayyankuruvithurai Cholavandan Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 6. S. Swaminathan Ayyankuruvithurai Cholavandan Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. …..Respondents Counsel for Appellant Bank : M/s V. Rajeswari Counsel for First Respondent : M/s Star Associates

¶17

R2 to R6 are given up.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDDB & FI Act against the order

¶20

passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Coimbatore in MA 56/2011 in OA 389/2004 on 11.4.2012.

¶21

Learned Counsel for appellant bank submitted that first respondent is the sixth defendant before the Tribunal below in OA 389/2004 and OA 389/2004 was finally disposed of on 8.2.2007. First respondent remained ex parte throughout the proceedings in OA 389/2004. It is her further submission that in pursuance of the final order passed by the Tribunal below, recovery proceedings have been initiated. After selling the secured asset and apportionment made out of sale proceeds, still there is due. First

¶22

respondent filed an application for condonation of delay in MA 56/2011 in

¶23

¶24

filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him. This application filed with a huge delay of 1590 is still pending. Without passing orders in the application, impugned order was passed wherein Learned Presiding Officer made certain observation, which is beyond the scope of the litigation.

¶25

Learned Counsel further submitted that taking into consideration the case of the first respondent that he has not given vakalath to anyone for defending his case as true and denial of his signature in every loan document as true, Learned Presiding Officer wanted the bank to prove that the respondent’s signatures are genuine and not forged. Further observations were made that if bank does not take appropriate steps, matter will be referred to CBCID to conduct requisite investigation, book the culprits and it may involve bank officer also. It is submitted that these observations are totally unwarranted. So submitting, she prayed that impugned order may be set aside and appeal be allowed.

¶26

No representation for first respondent. Respondents 2 to 6 are already given up.

¶27

It is seen from the impugned order and the final order passed in OA 389/2004, the first respondent has not participated in the enquiry before the Tribunal below. Therefore, merely on the basis of the submission that

¶28

¶29

he has not signed in the vakalath and other loan documents, observation made by the Learned Presiding Officer is not proper and not in accordance with law. This observation is possible only after producing material in support of forgery alleged to have been committed with regard to the signature of first respondent in the vakalath and other loan documents. It is seen that still the said MA 56/2011 filed by first respondent is pending. Only after disposal of this MA 56/2011, any such observation with regard to forgery of signature of first respondent can be recorded and further steps like directing investigation by CBI or any other Police Authority can be ordered.

¶30

In this view of the matter, impugned order dated 11.4.2012 passed in MA 56/2011 in OA 389/2004 is set aside and Appeal MA No.130/2014 is allowed with a direction to Learned Presiding Officer to dispose of MA 56/2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in accordance with law.

¶31

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶32

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 4^th Day of April, 2025)

¶33

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶34

Iob v. K Palanisamy Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iob v. K Palanisamy Ors.

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

Ramanathan versus Axis Bank

A O Bank of India versus Ms Vee Bee Enn Network Solution Anr.

Ms Pothen Autos Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

A.O.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Dr.Prathibha Sharan

smt Vijayalakshmi versus Sree Subramanyeswara Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank