Dismissed

Ms Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

DRAT4 Aug 2025MISC APPEAL/43/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous appeal challenging the DRT's refusal to direct the secured creditor to file an accurate statement of account. The Tribunal held that the statutory burden lies with the creditor and found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ is that the affidavit of the debtor not affected by the secular law of India.

Ms Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd. versus Asset… — Service and Employment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / not reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson

¶4

MISC. APPEAL No. 43 of 2025

¶5

(Arising out of IA. 359 of 2025 in O.A. 1792 of 2017 – DRT-II Hyderabad)

¶6

04.08.2025

¶7

M/S SRI ABHISHEK STEEL AND POWER LTD having office at Survey 71, 72, 73,(part) Gundla Pochampally, Medchal Road, Dist. Ranga Reedy and Level-2, RVR Tower, 6-3-1089/F, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad – 500082.

¶8

Sri Gopal Agarwal residing at Plot A, No 107, Road No 10c, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500082

¶9

Sri Yash Agarwal, Plot-A, No. 107, Road No. 10C, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad – 500082.

¶10

Smt Anuradha Agarwal residing at PLOT A, No 107, Road No 10c, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500082

¶11

M/S Sri Salasar Infrastructure And Developers Office at 46, Venkat Villa, Gunrock Enclave, Secunderabad

¶12

... Appellant

¶13

--Vs--

¶14

Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited having office at The Ruby, 10^th floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 400028.

¶15

CANARA BANK office at Somajiguda Branch, Hyderabad, Telengana.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

For Appellant : Mr.Ashok Kr. Dhandhania, Ld. Senior Adv. Mr. Kaushik Banerjee, ld. Adv. Mr. J. Biswas, ld. Adv.

¶18

For Respondent: Mr. Joy Saha, ld. Senior Adv.

¶19

Mr. Subhojit Saha, ld. Adv. Mr. S. Reddy, ld. Adv.

¶20

The Appellate Tribunal

¶21

Instant miscellaneous appeal has arisen against order dated

¶22

03.04.2025 passed by learned DRT-II Hyderabad in I.A. No. 359

¶23

¶24

of 2025 arising out of O.A. No. 1792 of 2017 (Asset

¶25

Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sri Abhishek Steel & Power Ltd.) whereby learned DRT dismissed the I.A. 359 of 2025.

¶26

As far as pleadings of the parties are concerned, O.A. No. 1792 of 2017 (old O.A. No. 125 of 2014) was filed by the Canara Bank against the borrowers, appellants herein, for issuance of recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.55,25,57,889.42 and 6,98,84,431.17 with pendente lite and future interest. Pending O.A., the loan was assigned to the respondent no.1 herein, namely Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. Proceedings were conducted exparte and exparte decree was passed on 09.08.2018. Thereafter, exparte decree was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 05.11.2024. Thereafter, updated statement

¶27

of account was filed by the secured creditor which was marked as exhibit. An I.A. No. 359 of 2025 was filed by the appellants before the learned DRT praying for a direction upon the secured creditor to produce a complete and accurate statement of account reflecting the actual contractual rate of interest without compounding within the stipulated time frame. Objections were invited by the learned DRT wherein it was stated that statement

¶28

¶29

of account has already been filed by the secured creditor in

¶30

accordance with law. It was also stated that application is moved to prolong the proceedings.

¶31

Learned DRT after hearing the learned counsel for the parties in I.A. 359 of 2025 recorded a finding that as recorded by the DRAT, Kolkata in the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in I.A.

¶32

No. 517 of 2019 that in the calculation made by the bank no mistake could be found and no documents are filed by the appellants, though they have examined witnesses produced by the secured creditor. Learned DRT did not find any ground and

¶33

accordingly, dismissed the I.A. 359 of 2025.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶35

records.

¶36

Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that DRAT recorded finding at the stage of disposal of waiver application filed by the appellants in the earlier proceeding. Subsequent thereto exparte decree passed against the appellants was set aside. Hence, this finding now cannot be upheld as res-judicata against the appellant.

¶37

¶38

Appellants are placing reliance upon the judgement of

¶39

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 367]. It is further submitted that it is mandatory for the bank to disclose the rate of interest in the statement of account.

¶40

Since exparte decree was set aside in the month of November, 2024 thereafter appellants moved the application. Accordingly, there is no delay on the part of the appellants.

¶41

Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that old O.A. (No. 125) is pending since 2014 wherein statement of account was required to file initially when the O.A. was filed. Subsequently, after setting aside of the exparte decree, statement of account was again filed. Appellants have

¶42

also produced witnesses. Appellants cannot direct the secured creditor to produce any document as per his own choice. Secured creditor cannot be asked to produce evidence against itself. Interest claimed and charged in the statement of account was as per the contractual rate of interest, which was at ‘floating rate’.

¶43

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra (supra) has not directed that contractual rate of interest should be mentioned in

¶44

¶45

every entry in the statement of account. Appeal is liable to the

¶46

dismissed.

¶47

As would appear from the record that O.A. is pending since 2014 wherein huge public money is involved. Exparte decree was passed against the appellant/defendants, but was eventually set aside on 05.11.2024. Initially at the time of filing of O.A. statement of account as required under the law was filed by the

¶48

bank. Thereafter, when the exparte decree was set aside again statement of account was filed. It is also not in dispute that contractual rate of interest between the parties was at ‘floating rate’. It is also to be observed that the secured creditor’s witness has been examined by the appellants. I.A. 359 of 2025 was filed at the stage when the bank has completed their argument in the

¶49

O.A.

¶50

As far as finding recorded by the DRAT, Kolkata on 13.04.2023 in I.A. 517 of 2019 is concerned, it was recorded while disposing of an application praying for waiver from making pre-deposit as required u/s 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. At

¶51

that time, exparte decree for an amount of Rs.62,24,32,320/was in existence. At that juncture, it was submitted by the

¶52

¶53

respondents that an amount of Rs.75,37,64,534.00 inclusive of interest is due to the appellants which was calculated after taking into consideration the sale consideration amount of

¶54

Rs.53,80,00,000.00. The finding recorded by DRAT, Kolkata at

¶55

the stage of disposal of waiver application in an earlier appeal.

¶56

Further, after passing that order, exparte decree got set aside.

¶57

Hence, now that order could not be taken into consideration as

¶58

far as question of determination of debt is concerned.

¶59

In the case of Ravindra (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court in Para

¶60

55 has recorded extensive observation on interest calculation by

¶61

the secured creditor. In para 56 Hon’ble Apex Court has settled the liability, which is binding upon all the authorities as well as Court and Tribunal. Secured creditor is the appellant in the O.A. proceedings. Initially burden lies upon it to prove and to discharge its burden in accordance with law. It is for the learned

¶62

DRT to decide at the final stage as to whether the secured creditor succeeded in discharging its burden to prove or not and if

¶63

so discharged, whether Opposite Party in the O.A. could have discharged their burden to disprove the case of the secured creditor or not? The statement of accounts is already on record,

¶64

¶65

which have to be considered and appreciated by the learned DRT

¶66

as per statutory provisions and the law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶67

Apex Court in Ravindra (supra).

¶68

Accordingly, I find no merit in the Misc. appeal, which is

¶69

liable to be dismissed with the observation made in the body of the judgement.

¶70

O R D E R

¶71

Appeal is dismissed with the observation made in the body

¶72

of the judgement. Since the O.A. is pending from 2014, learned

¶73

DRT is expected to decide the case, as expeditiously as possible

¶74

without granting any adjournment to either of the party

¶75

preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date when

¶76

copy of this order is placed before the learned DRT.

¶77

File be consigned to record room.

¶78

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶79

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4^th day of August, 2025.

¶80

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶81

Dated : 04.08.2025 /pkb

¶82

Ms Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sri Abhishek Steel and Power Ltd. v. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Samanta and Ors. versus Smfg India Credit Company Ltd. and Anr.

Tropical Coatings International Private Limited And Others versus Central Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Injamuri Arun Vilasini

Union Bank of India versus Smt Peddu Mallika

Union Bank of India versus Aditya Constructions

Shyam Sundar palreddy versus Union Bank of India