Allowed

Indain bank v. M s Mahadevan enterprises and Ors.

DRAT17 Apr 2025MISC APPEAL/51/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the bank's appeal, setting aside the lower court's rejection of an amendment application to correct a clerical error in naming respondents. The Tribunal confirmed the amendment was permissible and directed the lower court to expedite the main proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the amendment application is set aside; the application seeking amendment is allowed; the original application to be disposed of within three months.

Indain bank versus M s Mahadevan enterprises and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

MA 51/2013

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 17^th day of April, 2025

¶4

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

¶5

MA 51/2013

¶6

(arising out of IA No.360/2012 in OA No.327/2008 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

Indian Bank Tiruninravur Branch, Since transferred to ARM Branch II, No.55, Wellington Estate, Egmore, Chennai 8.

¶9

…..Appellant Bank

¶10

And

¶11

1. M/s Mahadevan Enterprises Rep. by its partners

¶12

2. A. Krishnamurthy Partner, M/s Mahadevan Enterprises

¶13

3. A. Mythili Partner, M/s Mahadevan Enterprises

¶14

R1 to R3 residing at:

¶15

No.23, 3^rd Street, East Abirampuram Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶16

4. V. Venkateswaran, No.305-C, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶17

¶18

MA 51/2013

¶19

5. C. Visalakshi, B-1, Mahadevan Apartments, No.305, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶20

6. V. Nagarrajan (died) No.305, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018.

¶21

7. V. Badrinarayanan (died) No.305-C, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶22

7(a) Uma Badhri Narayanan W/o Lae Badhri Narayanan F01, Sakhi Apartments, No.433, Ramasamy Salai,

¶23

K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078.

¶24

(7(a) impleded as per order in IA No.980/2017 dated 27.6.2017)

¶25

8. V. Anuradha, No.305C, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶26

9. Akila Nagarajan, W/o Late V. Nagarajan, No.305C, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶27

10. Sharanya, D/o Late V. Nagarajan, No.305C, TTKRoad, Alwarpet, Chennai 600018.

¶28

11. Rishikesh,

¶29

D/o Late V. Nagarajan, No.305C, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶30

(9 to 11 respondents were impleaded as per order in IA 385/2022 dated 26.11.2024)

¶31

…..Respondents

¶32

R1 to R3 and R5 remained ex parte .

¶33

¶34

MA 51/2013

¶35

Counsel for	Appellant Bank	: Shri B. Murugavel
Counsel for	R4, R6, R7(a),	: Mrs. K. Bhanumathi
R8 to R11

¶36

ORDER

¶37

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

¶38

passed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai in IA 360/2012 in OA No.327/2008 dated 21.3.2013.

¶39

This application was filed for amending the prayer in the OA, more specifically to substitute the word ‘to’ in place of the word ‘and’ in between respondents 1 and 8. It appears originally this application was allowed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai on 28.8.2012. That order was challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow the challenge on the ground that the order was a non speaking order. Subsequently, the matter was heard on the point raised by the parties and dismissed. Thus this appeal is filed.

¶40

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for appellant that first respondent is a partnership firm in which respondents 2, 3 and 4 are partners along with one Rajalakshmi. All the partners have executed

¶41

¶42

MA 51/2013

¶43

mortgage in respect of schedule property for securing the loan.

¶44

Rajalakshmi died, therefore, R5 to R8 are impleaded as respondents as legal representatives of deceased Rajalakshmi. There is a specific pleading in the OA that R5 to R8 are liable for debt of the partnership firm as Legal Representatives of deceased partner Rajalakshmi. It was wrongly typed by mistake in the prayer that respondents 1 and 8 are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt instead of respondents 1 to 8. It is a typographical error by oversight, therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of Learned Presiding Officer and allow the amendment application.

¶45

4. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2022 (16) SCC 1 in re, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another, reported in 2022 (16) SCC 1 for the proposition that “ Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation.”

¶46

Opposing this submission, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted

¶47

that claim against R5 to R8 is barred by limitation when computed from

¶48

¶49

MA 51/2013

¶50

the date of death of deceased Rajalakshmi on 16.1.1995. Therefore, this

¶51

amendment application was not filed in time but was filed during the course of recording evidence. It is barred by limitation. If the application is allowed, limitation has to be computed only from the date of filing amendment application.

¶52

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶53

From the submissions made by Learned Counsel appearing for parties and perusal of pleadings in the OA that it is apparent that word ‘and’ was typed between R1 and R8 by mistake instead of the word ‘to’. It is a clerical and typographical error by oversight. There is sufficient pleading in the original application that respondents 5 to 8 are also liable as legal representatives of deceased partner, Rajalakshmi. It is a settled proposition of law that legal representatives of deceased Rajalakshmi i.e. R5 to R8 are liable only from the estate, if any, received from the deceased Rajalakshmi and they are not personally liable for the debt of the first respondent partnership firm.

¶54

With regard to the issue of limitation canvassed by Learned Counsel for

¶55

contesting respondents, this Tribunal is of the view that the issue of

¶56

¶57

MA 51/2013

¶58

limitation can be raised by Learned counsel for parties before the

¶59

Tribunal below for its adjudication.

¶60

In the said circumstances, Order of Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai dated 21.3.2013 passed in IA 360/2012 in OA 327/2008 is set aside and IA 360/2012 filed seeking amendment of the relief sought in the said OA is allowed. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai directed to dispose of OA 327/2008 as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, since originally the OA was filed in the year 1999.

¶61

In the result, Appeal MA 51/2013 is allowed. Parties are directed to bear their

¶62

own costs.

¶63

Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶64

[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 17^th Day of April, 2025)

¶65

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶66

Indain bank v. M s Mahadevan enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indain bank v. M s Mahadevan enterprises and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s. Marg Limited & Ors. versus Indian Bank & Ors.

C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank

M S Sri Peachiamman Enterprises versus City Union Bank Limited

Benefit Entertainments (India) Ltd. versus The Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Mr Subramanian C

M S Benefit Filmcity Idnia Ltd. versus The Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited