Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/s Sai Ram Travels

DRAT13 May 2025REGULAR APPEAL/1/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal filed by Punjab National Bank against a DRT order dismissing a Section 19 recovery application. The Tribunal quashed the dismissal, clarified that relief was indeed sought against the introduced legal representatives, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after granting a hearing, while also deleting a wrongly impleaded party.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside; appeal allowed; matter remanded to DRT-II, Hyderabad for fresh hearing.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sai Ram Travels — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶4

Appeal No. 01 of 2025

¶5

(Arising out of O.A. 3439 of 2017 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶7

CHAIRPERSON

¶8

Punjab National Bank (erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) having its office at Regency Plaza, Ameerpeet, Maitrivihar, Hyderabad – 500 038.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

M/s. Sai Ram Travels, 12-2-108, Goods Shed Road, Mossapet, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 018;

¶12

Smt. S. Vimala, wife of late Shiva Ram Gupta, residing at 2-108, Goods Shed Road, Mossapet, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 018;

¶13

S. Sai Rohit Gupta, Son of late Shiva Ram Gupta, residing at 2-108, Goods Shed Road, Mossapet, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 018.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Appellant

¶16

… Ms. Aparajita Rao Ms. Nabanita Dutta

¶17

JUDGMENT : 13^th May, 2025

¶18

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶19

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Despite service none appears for the Respondents.

¶20

2. Instant appeal has arisen against judgment and order dated 25.11.2024, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in O.A. 3439 of 2017 (Oriental Bank of Commerce -vs- S. Shivaram Gupta & Others) dismissing the original application filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 holding that since no relief is claimed against Defendants No. 3 and 4 in the proceedings, accordingly, no relief can be granted as the O.A. is not instituted properly.

¶21

¶22

Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata 3. Feeling aggrieved, Appellant Bank preferred the appeal; wherein notices were duly served upon the Respondents but they chose not to appear.

¶23

4. I.A. 102 of 2025 is filed by the Appellant for deletion of the name of Respondent No. 3, Viz., S. Sai Rohit Gupta from the array of parties in the appeal.

¶24

4. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that that the Original Application No. 3439 of 2017 was originally filed against one Shiva Ram Gupta and M/s. Sai Ram Travels, represented through its proprietor, Respondent No. 1 , Shiva Ram Gupta. Pending proceedings, Respondent No. 1, Shiva Ram Gupta, died and on the basis of Memo submitted by the Defendants before the DRT, Smt. S. Vimala and S. Sai Rohit Gupta were substituted as legal representatives of the deceased Defendant Shiva Ram Gupta. It is further submitted that pending O.A., an application, I.A. 2092 of 2018 was filed by S. Sai Rohit Gupta for deletion of his name on the ground that he is not the son of Shiva Ram Gupta, Proprietor of M/s. Sai Ram Travels. But the same was dismissed by Learned DRT vide order dated 2.3.2020 and O.A. was proceeded against him also.

¶25

5. Learned Counsel for Appellant categorically conceded that S. Sai Rohit Gupta, who was Defendant No. 4 in O.A. and Respondent No. 3 in the appeal, is not the son of Defendant No. 1, Shiva Ram Gupta in the O.A. who was the proprietor of Defendant No. 2, M/s. Sai Ram Travels. Accordingly it is fairly conceded that he was wrongly

¶26

¶27

Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata impleaded as legal representative of the Defendant No. 1 in the O.A. and was also impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the appeal. Since the same objection was raised by the Respondent No. 3 in the appeal as S. Sai Rohit Gupta, before the Learned DRT but was repelled, however, on the basis of the admission by the Appellant, I.A. 102 of 2025 is allowed. Appellants are permitted to delete the name of Respondent No. 3 in the appeal.

¶28

6. As far as merits of the appeal are concerned, it is alleged that the Defendant No. 1 in the O.A. Shiva Ram Gupta availed certain credit facilities from the Appellant which were not repaid. Legal notices were issued and the O.A. was filed for realization of the same. Pending O.A., Defendant No. 1, Shiva Ram Gupta, died. His legal representatives Smt. S. Vimala, being his wife, along with S. Sai Rohit Gupta were impleaded; although name of S. Sai Rohit Gupta is deleted now. Learned DRT simply dismissed the O.A. on the ground that no relief against the Defendant was sought in the O.A. proceedings. Learned DRT also placed reliance upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court (i) Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Others -vs- Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by LRs & Others [(2011) 6 SCC 529] and (ii) Sheikh Abdul Kayum & Others -vs- Mulla Alibhai & Others (AIR 1963 SC 309).

¶29

Judgments, as relied upon by the DRT, are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶30

7. As far as relief is concerned, originally O.A. was filed against M/s. Sai Ram Travels and Shiva Ram Gupta, being

¶31

¶32

Appeal No. 01 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata the proprietor, and the relief was sought against them. Subsequently, on the death of the Proprietor, his wife was impleaded. What would be the extent of her liability have to be looked into by the Learned DRT. But as far as relief is concerned, she has been impleaded as a Defendant in the O.A., accordingly, it cannot not be said no relief was claimed against her.

¶33

8. I am of the considered view that the Learned DRT has miserably failed to exercise its jurisdiction and has misdirected itself in recording the findings which are erroneous and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.11.2024, passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in O.A. 3439 of 2017 (Oriental Bank of Commerce -vsS. Shivaram Gupta & Others) is set aside.

¶36

Matter is remanded to DRT-II, Hyderabad for deciding the matter afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law.

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶39

File be consigned to Record room.

¶40

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶41

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J)