The Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by borrowers against a single judge's order rejecting their objection to a bank's recovery petition. The claim that counsel failed to file supporting documents was rejected as the original hearing was on merits.
The appeal filed under Section 20 of the RDB Act was dismissed with costs to the bank.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 7th of August 2025
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan
CHAIRPERSON
MA 16/2025
(Arising out of MA 38/2019 in T.A.No. 1487 of 2016 (o.a.No.229/2010) on the file of DRT-II, AT Ernakulam)
Between
And
1
Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Ijlal.C. Counsel for Respondent-1 : Mr.M.L. Ganesh & Mr. S. Arunkumar
R2 & R3 – set ex-parte
ORDER
This appeal is filed under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 r/w Rule 5 of the D.R.A.T. (PROCEDURE) Rules, 1994 challenging the order passed in M.A. 38/2019 in T.A. No. 1487/2016 (O.A.No.229/2010) by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRTII, Ernakulam.
2
respondents herein strongly opposes the appeal on the ground that the OA 229/2010 was filed in the year 2010 for recovery of the loan amount and after contest, it was disposed on 22/01/2019. In pursuance of the DRC No. 48/2020 issued by the DRT, Ernkulam, proclamation was issued on 10/02/2023. The appellants challenged
3
the said proclamation in OP (DRT) 106/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the said OP (DRT) 106/2023 was disposed on 22/03/2023 relegating the applicants therein to move the appropriate forum. No appeal is filed before the appropriate forum. Appellants filed MA 16/2025 against the order passed in MA 38/2019 only to protract the proceedings.
Rs.25,11,965.02p. along with the subsequent interest and costs.
4
the counter affidavit and documents cannot be accepted. It is seen from the order of the learned Presiding Officer that the learned Presiding Officer had considered the case of the appellants set out in the written submission and only thereafter, the case was disposed on merits. The order passed in MA 38/2019 in TA 1487/2016 (OA 229/2010) cannot be considered as an exparte order. This order was passed on merits. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that the learned Presiding officer rightly dismissed the MA 38/2019 in TA 1487/2016
5
(OA 229/2010) and there is no reason for interference. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the costs of the first respondent/Bank.
Pending IAs if any, shall stand closed.
[Dictated to Steno (RA), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 7th day of August, 2025]
Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the dismissal of the objection application filed by the bank can be maintained on grounds of lack of filed documents by counsel.
Whether the earlier objection application was disposed of on merits or ex parte.
Whether the High Court order directing disposal afresh on merits requires re-opening of concluded proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudarshan Babu .S.
Pushpaja
The South Indian Bank Ltd.
A.U. Zakir Hussain
Rajeena .S.
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
