Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Smt Banashree Mohapatra

DRAT4 Sept 2025MISC APPEAL/46/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the bank's appeal against an interim order maintaining status quo. The court held that granting a fresh interim order after the appellant complied with deposit conditions, which were not met in an earlier attempt, did not violate the principle of res judicata.

What did the court decide?

Interim order maintaining status quo stood in favor of respondents; appeal dismissed; DRT directed to decide pending securitization application expeditiously.

State Bank of India versus Smt Banashree Mohapatra — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

Reportable / not reportable

¶3

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 46 of 2025

¶4

(Arising out of IA 1589 OF 2024 in S.A. 77 of 2024– DRT Cuttack)

¶5

04.09.2025

¶6

State Bank Of India Having Registered Office At Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Sarb, Madhupatna, Cuttack, Odisha 753010.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

--Vs--

¶9

Smt Banashree Mohapatra Having at Bidanasi, Kannhasahi, PsBidanasi, Dist. Cuttack, 753014.

¶10

Durjay Kumar Nath Residing At Kadala, Meramandali, Dist. Dhenkanal – 759121.

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Debasish Chakraborty, ld. Adv. For Respondent: None

¶13

The Appellate Tribunal

¶14

Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 28.10.2024

¶15

passed by learned DRT-Cuttack in I.A. 1589 of 2024 arising out of

¶16

S.A. 77 of 2024 [Smt. Banashree Mohapatra Vs. AO, State Bank of

¶17

India & Ors.] whereby order of maintaining status quo was passed.

¶18

Vide order dated 30.08.2024 learned Tribunal also passed an order

¶19

maintaining status quo subject to deposit of Rs.59.44 lakhs within

¶20

30 days on or before 1^st October, 2024.

¶21

¶22

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant bank

¶23

preferred the appeal.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant bank and perused the

¶25

records. Respondents are served, but no represented.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant bank submits that initially

¶27

interim order was passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.08.2024 wherein securitization applicant was directed to deposit Rs.59.44 lakhs within 30 days, but in default interim order was vacated. It appears that an application for extension of time was filed by the respondent wherein vide order dated 30.09.2024 learned DRT recorded that only a sum of Rs.18.00 lakhs was deposited by the securitization applicant while order was passed to deposit Rs.59.44 lakhs. Accordingly, interim order was vacated. Subsequent thereto another application for interim protection was filed by the securitization applicant along with DD of Rs.59.44 lakhs with further relief for maintaining status quo, which was allowed by passing an interim order.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that interim

¶29

order is bad in law as it would against the principle of res judicata.

¶30

¶31

In a recent judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the

¶32

principle of res judicata would be applicable even in the pending proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment in Sulthan Said Ibrahim -vs- Prakasan & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1218) decided on 23rd May, 2025 has placed reliance upon

¶33

Bhanu Kumar Jain -vs- Archana Kumar reported in [(2005) 1

¶34

SCC 787] wherein it was held :

¶35

“That the principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding as well. The relevant observations are reproduced hereinbelow: "18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal -vs- Deorajin Debi [AIR 1960 SC 941: (1960) 3 SCR 590] and Prahlad Singh -vs- Col. Sukhdev Singh [(1987) 1 SCC 727].) 19. In Y.B. Patil [(1976) 4 SCC 66] it was held: (SCC p. 68, para 4)

¶36

It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a proceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that proceeding."

¶37

3 Yet again in Hope Plantations Limited [(1999) 5 SCC 590] this Court laid down the law in the following terms: (SCC p.604, para 17)

¶38

"17. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice.””

¶39

The Hon’ble Apex Court has also approved the decision of Five

¶40

Bench Judges of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan

¶41

Bhattacharya -vs- Kedar Nath Haldar (1928 SCC OnLine Cal

¶42

wherein it was held that:

¶43

“(1) The question whether a decision is correct or erroneous has no bearing upon the question Whether it operates or does not operate as res judicata. The doctrine is that in certain circumstances the Court shall not try a suit or issue but shall deal with the matter on the footing that

¶44

¶45

it is a matter no longer open to contest by reason of a previous decision. In these circumstances it must necessarily be wrong for a Court to try the suit or issue, come to its own conclusion thereon, consider whether the previous decision is right and give effect to it or not according as it conceives the previous decision to be right or wrong. To say, as a result of such disorderly procedure, that the previous decision was wrong and that it was wrong on a point of law/or on a pure point of law, and that therefore it may be disregarded, is an indefensible form of reasoning. For this purpose, it is not true that a point of law is always open to a party.

¶46

(2) In India, at all events, a party who takes a plea of res judicata has to show that the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and also that it has been heard and finally decided. This phrase "matter directly and substantially in issue" has to be given a sensible and businesslike meaning, particularly in view of Expl. 4 to sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure which contains the expression "grounds of defence or attack." Sec. 11 of the Code says nothing about causes of action, a phrase which always requires careful handling. Nor does the section say anything about point or points of law, or pure points of law. As a rule parties do not join issue upon academic or abstract questions but upon matters of importance to themselves. The section requires that the doctrine be restricted to matters in issue and of these to matters which are directly as well as substantially in issue.

¶47

(3) Questions of law are of all kinds and cannot be dealt with as though they were all the same. Questions of procedure, questions affecting jurisdiction, questions of limitation, may all be questions of law. In such questions the rights, of parties are not the only matter for consideration. The Court and the public have an interest. When a plea 4 of res judicata is raised with reference to such matters, it is at least a question whether special considerations do not apply.

¶48

(4) In any case in which it is found that the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and has been heard and finally decided by such Court, the principle of res judicata is not to be ignored merely on the ground that the reasoning, whether in law or otherwise, of the previous decision can be attacked on a particular point. On the other hand it is plain from the terms of sec. 11 of the Code that what is made conclusive between the parties is the decision of the Court and that the reasoning of the Court is not necessarily the same thing as its decision. The object of the doctrine of res judicata is not to fasten upon parties special principles applicable to them inter se, but to ascertain their rights and the facts upon which these rights directly and substantially depend and to prevent this ascertainment from becoming nugatory by precluding the parties from reopening or recontesting that which has been finally decided.”

¶49

The same principle would apply in the present case. I find

¶50

that interim protection was granted vide order dated 30.09.2024

¶51

with condition that the securitization applicant should deposit Rs.59.44 lakhs by 01.10.2024, but only 18.00 lakhs could be

¶52

¶53

deposited by the securitization applicant. Thereafter, extension application was filed which was decided on 30.09.2024. Accordingly, interim order was vacated. If subsequently condition imposed for interim protection is complied with and impugned order is passed directing to maintain status quo, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, learned DRT should be directed to decide the pending securitization application expeditiously.

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

Appeal is dismissed. However, learned DRT is directed to decide the pending S.A. expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Needless to observe that we have not touched nor enter into the merits of the

¶56

pending securitization application.

¶57

File be consigned to record room.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶61

Dated : 04.09.2025 15/pkb