Disposed

Noel Michael Saldanha and 1 Anr. v. Canara Bank

DRAT8 Sept 2025MISC APPEAL/28/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interpretation Act provisions regarding execution and attachment of property orders. This judgment is a dictum regarding the proper procedure for handling original documents seized by police authorities during criminal investigations in civil court proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act V of 1908). The court held that police cannot certify documents; parties must be summoned to prod

What the court decided

AI extract

Noel Michael Saldanha and 1 Anr. versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 08^th of September, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

M.A. 28/2025

¶5

(IA 1257/2023 in OA. No.880/2019 of 2019 before DRT-I, Bengaluru)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Noel Michael Saldanha Son of John Saldanha Aged about 43 years, No. 4-386, Merlapadav, Arkula, Farangipet, Mangalore – 574 143.

¶8

John Saldanha

¶9

Son of Louvis Saldanha Aged about 74 years, No. 4-386, Merlapadav, Arkula, Farangipet, Mangalore – 574 143.

¶10

…Appellants

¶11

And

¶12

Canara Bank Head Office at No.112, JC Road, Bangalore – 560 002 And one of its Branch Office called Bunder Branch, Mangalore-575 001. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶13

¶14

Golden Enterprises A partnership firm Having its office at No.20-3-251-71 I Floor, Regal Park, Mission Street, Mangalore-575 001. Rep. by its Partners. 3. Sheik Abdullah Son of Late Mohammed Aged about 44 years No.4-94, Q3, A.H Colony, Beeri, Kotekar, Mangalore-575 002. ….Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Appellants : Mrs. Alafiya Najmuddin Counsel for R1 Bank : Mr.M.L.Ganesh

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Appeal is filed against the order passed in IA

¶19

1257/2023 in OA 880/2019. OA 880/2019 was filed by 1^st Respondent Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.43,57,996/due from the Defendants therein. In the said OA, the Respondent Bank filed IA 1257/2023 for production of certified copies of the documents as secondary evidence and mark them as Exhibits. The reason is that the original documents have been seized of by Sub Inspector of Law and Order, South Police Station, Mangalore, in connection with criminal case. The concerned Police official has given certified copies of these documents, and therefore, the aforesaid Application was filed for marking those documents. That Application was allowed, against which this Appeal is filed.

¶20

¶21

Learned Counsel for Appellants submitted that the Police are not the competent authority to certify the documents, and therefore, certified copies issued by the Police cannot be marked. It is further submitted that on the basis of compliant given by Defendant No.3, Noel Michael Saldanha S/o John Saldanha, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, on the file of Mangalore South Police Station, FIR in Crime No. 116/2019 on 26.05.2019, was registered. Investigation in this case, is not over and final report is not filed. The Appellants are disputing the genuineness and veracity of the documents produced by the Bank. Thus it is prayed to set aside the order of Learned Presiding Officer.

¶22

Learned Counsel for 1^st Respondent Bank submitted

¶23

that since the Police authorities have seized the original documents for investigation, those documents are in the custody of Police. Therefore, copies have been produced. Appellants cannot dispute the genuineness of these documents.

¶24

¶25

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶26

Admittedly, the Police is not the competent authority to certify the correctness of the documents and issue certified copies. Here in this case, admittedly, the documents have been seized by the Police after the filing of the OA, and therefore, there are two courses open to the Bank. The Bank can move DRT to summon the original documents available with the Police for marking of these documents and return the same after marking for the purpose of completion of investigation or the documents can be summoned for taking certified copies of the documents and then return to the Police authorities. Copies issued by the Police cannot be marked when there is serious allegations of fraud and fabrication of the documents made against the Bank officials.

¶27

In this view of the matter, the order passed by Learned

¶28

Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Bengaluru, in IA 1257/2023 is set

¶29

¶30

aside and Learned Presiding Officer is directed to summon the original documents from the concerned Police Station for marking the original documents as evidence or issuing certified copies. After marking or taking certified copies, certified copied of documents can be retained, and the original documents can be sent to Police for completion of the investigation/trial.

¶31

Accordingly, the Appeal in MA 28/2025 is allowed. Both

¶32

parties shall bear their own costs. All the pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶33

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me this 08^th of September, 2025]

¶34

Noel Michael Saldanha and 1 Anr. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Noel Michael Saldanha and 1 Anr. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Yellamma Motors and seven Ors.

MadhuSudhana versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Vimala versus M S Shriram Finance Limited

Ms Supreme Traders and 9 Others versus State Bank of India

Sasidharan T and others versus Federal Bank

Electronica Finance versus Mr Damodharan