Remanded

Ram Niwas Agarwal v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT11 Aug 2025REGULAR APPEAL/125/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the DRT's dismissal of a能够获得 opinion on signature genuineness. The appellant filed a handwriting expert report during this appeal showing signatures were forged. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the DRT order. It remanded the matter to the DRT to decide afresh after giving the bank an opportunity to rebut the fresh expert report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2017 set aside. Matter remanded to DRT to decide the Stay Application afresh within twelve weeks after considering the Government Handwriting Expert report and giving the Bank an opportunity to rebut.

Ram Niwas Agarwal versus Punjab National Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 125 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 125 of 2018

¶5

(Arising out of M.A. 272 of 2017 in S.A. 19 of 2016 in DRT, Cuttack)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶7

Ram Niwas Agarwal, Son of Late Tarachand Agarwal, At-Plot No.1036, Mahanadi Vihar, P.O. - Nayabazar, P.S. Chauliaganj, District - Cuttack – 753 004, Odisha.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-Versus-

¶10

Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch, Bhubaneswar District - Khurda;

¶11

Punjab National Bank, represented through its Branch Manager, Nayabazar Branch, At/P.O.Nayabazar, Town/District – Cuttack -753 004, Odisha;

¶12

M/s Mahabali Alloys Private Limited, Regd. Office at - Piligrim Road, College Square, Town/District – Cuttack – 753 003, Odisha;

¶13

Sri Koushik Mohanty, Son of Braja Bihari Mohanty, At Tapaswinee, Plot No. 252/3318, Gangadhar Meher Marg, Bhubaneswar-751 024, District - Khurda, Odisha;

¶14

Sri Abhinash Mohanty, Son of Abheda Nanda Mohanty, At Plot No.556, Lewis Road, BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751 014, District - Khurda, Odisha;

¶15

Sri Anshuman Samantaray. Son of Brajaraj Samantaray, At-Plot No. 4912 (P), In front of-EA-50, Badagada Brit Colony, Bhubaneswar – 751 018 District - Khurda, Odisha;

¶16

Sri Bidubhusan Nayak, Son of Bishnu Charan Nayak, At Duplex-15, Ratna Niwas, Brahmeswarpatna, Bhubaneswar – 751 018, District - Khurda, Odisha;

¶17

Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Son of Sri Ram Niwas Agarwal, Resident of Plot No. 1036, Mahanadi Vihar, P.O. Nayabazar, P.S. Chauliaganj, Town/District - Cuttack;

¶18

Dinesh Agarwal, Son of Sri Bansidhar Agarwal, Resident of Plot No. 1037, Mahanadi Vihar, P.O. Nayabazar, P.S. Chauliaganj, Town/District - Cuttack. … Respondents

¶19

Counsel for Appellant … Mr. Dipanjan Datta Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury

¶20

Counsel for Respondents No. 1 & 2/Bank … Mr. Omkar Ganguly

¶21

¶22

Appeal No. 125 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata

¶23

JUDGMENT : 11^th August, 2025

¶24

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶25

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Learned DRT, Cuttack in M.A. 272 of 2017 arising out of S.A. 19 of 2016 (Ram Niwas Agarwal -vs- Union Bank of India) whereby Learned DRT dismissed M.A. 272 of 2017.

¶26

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Securitization Applicant, who Appellant in the appeal. 3. Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant, Respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the records. Respondents No. 3 to 9 though served but not represented.

¶27

4. S.A. 19 of 2016 was filed challenging the action taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also to set aside the Demand Notice dated 15.12.2015 and Possession Notice dated 26.2.2016. It appears that a challenge was made by the Appellant herein to the effect that Appellant, namely, Sri Ram Niwas Agarwal, has not signed the Guarantee document and the signatures are forged. O.A. 630 of 2014 was also filed by the Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which is still pending.

¶28

5. Respondent Bank denied the allegations and stated that the document contains the signatures of the Appellant, Ram Niwas Agarwal. It so happens that the M.A. was filed for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert to ascertain the genuineness of the signatures. Learned DRT recorded a finding that the matter is pending for a quite long time. M.A was filed after about six years. It is further observed that the alleged disputed signatures tally with the admitted signatures. Accordingly, M.A. 272 of 2017 was dismissed by the Learned DRT.

¶29

6. It appears that in the meantime, criminal complaints were also lodged by the Appellant, Ram Niwas Agarwal, before the competent Court of the Magistrate wherein a Report of Government Examiner of

¶30

¶31

Appeal No. 125 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata Questioned Documents, CID, CB HWB, Rasulgarh Bhubaneshwar dated 16.8.2022 was submitted wherein the expert opined that the person who wrote this similar signature mark A-1 to A-41 did not write the disputed signatures marked X-1 to X-5.

¶32

7. This report is filed in the appeal with a supplementary affidavit by the Appellants; although it did not form part of the record of the DRT.

¶33

8. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that report of the Government Handwriting Expert which shows that the disputed signatures were not made by the person who has made the specimen signatures. Accordingly, this report has to be considered at the time of final disposal of the S.A.

¶34

9. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Bank would submit that no opportunity of rebuttal was allowed to the Bank before the Learned DRT as the report is filed pending appeal.

¶35

10. Having considered the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that the only question to be determined, as far as M.A. 272 of 2017 is concerned, is whether the disputed signatures were made by the Appellant, Ram Niwas Agarwal, or not.

¶36

A report is submitted in the Criminal Proceedings by the Government Handwriting Expert which is filed in appeal. However, the decision in the S.A. to be taken by the Learned DRT wherein opportunity of rebuttal should be granted to the Bank to arrive at a final conclusion by the Learned DRT. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the matter should be remanded to DRT to decide it afresh in view of the observation made in the body of the judgment.

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.10.2017, passed by the Learned DRT, Cuttack in M.A. 272 of 2017 arising out of S.A. 19 of 2016 (Ram Niwas Agarwal -vs- Union Bank of India), is set aside. Matter is remanded to DRT to decide the S.A. afresh after

¶39

¶40

Appeal No. 125 of 2018-DRAT-Kolkata considering the report of the Government Expert dated 16.8.2022. Needless to say that the Learned DRT should give an opportunity to the Bank to file rebuttal, if any, and thereafter should decide the issue of signatures of Ram Niwas Agarwal on the Guarantee document.

¶41

Since it is an old matter, Learned DRT is expected to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date copy of this judgment is placed before the Learned DRT.

¶42

File be consigned to Record room.

¶43

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶44

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶45

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶46

Dated: 11^th August, 2025 19/ac

Ram Niwas Agarwal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Niwas Agarwal v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alimonsur Mistry versus Yes Bank

V Raghvendra versus Union Bank of India

K Kartik Sagar versus Union Bank of India

D. Srinivasulu Reddy versus Indian Bank

Deepak Kumar Agarwal versus Punjab National Bank

Rama Plywood versus Punjab National Bank