Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S Shree Krishna International and Anr.

DRAT18 Feb 2025REGULAR APPEAL/57/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench allowed the appeal set aside the dismissal of the Time-barred Application and recalled the dismissal of the Main Application on the ground that evidence on affidavit should be filed by the bank before the DRT within a fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 16.04.2019 and 17.06.2019 set aside; liberty granted to appellant to file evidence on affidavit before the DRT by 28.03.2025.

Indian Bank versus M/S Shree Krishna International and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶4

Appl. No. 57 of 2022

¶5

(Arising out of T.A. 1327 of 2013 in DRT-I Kolkata)

¶6

Order No.

¶7

18.02.2025

¶8

INDIAN BANK having registered office at LAKE TOWN BRANCH 919 PS LAKE TOWNkolkata - 700089

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

--Vs--

¶11

M/S SHREE KRISHNA INTERNATIONAL having office at 97C INDRA BISWAS ROAD Kolkata - 700037

¶12

2.Sri C G Jayan residing at 173, Biresh Pally(S), Ward No.21, Madhyamgram Municipality, P.S. Barasat, Dist-24Parganas(North)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Barun Baran Bose, ld. adv.

¶15

For Respondent : None

¶16

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellant bank and perused

¶18

the records. None appears for the respondents.

¶19

Originally loan was sanctioned by the Allahabad Bank, but

¶20

after merger of Allahabad Bank in Indian Bank, appeal is being prosecuted by the Indian Bank.

¶21

It is an unfortunate case which shows negligence and

¶22

callousness of the bank officer in prosecuting the matter wherein

¶23

Rs.85.00 lakh was sanction as cash credit loan on 04.03.2010 in

¶24

favour of respondent no.1 borrower. Loan account was irregular

¶25

¶26

and became NPA on 30.09.2010. Subsequent thereto Original

¶27

Application no. 1299 of 2012 was filed u/s 19 of the Recovery of

¶28

Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 on 30.11.2012 for a certificate of Rs.1,13,18,418.39 with pendente lite and future interest before DRT-II Kolkata. O.A. was subsequently transferred to DRT-I Kolkata and renumbered as T.A. 1327 of 2013. Pending T.A. none appeared for the bank for the last three days as mentioned in the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by learned DRT-I Kolkata. Subsequently, DRT-I Kolkata dismissed the T.A. 1327 of 2013 for

¶29

non-prosecution on 16.04.2019.

¶30

Thereafter, M.A. 15 of 2019 was filed for recalling the order

¶31

dated 16.04.2019 on the ground that on the date fixed learned counsel for the appellant bank was busy before the Hon’ble High Court and could not appear before the DRT as it is mentioned in

¶32

Para 3 of the M.A. It was also mentioned that evidence on affidavit was prepared and duly affirmed on 04.12.2017, but the same is not filed.

¶33

Learned DRT vide impugned order dated 17.06.2019 dismissed the M.A. holding that even after lapse of six years the

¶34

bank has not filed evidence on affidavit and for the last three

¶35

¶36

consecutive occasions none appeared for the applicant bank.

¶37

However, it is observed in the order that upon enquiry,learned

¶38

advocate for the bank submits that as the bank has not provided

¶39

the documents they could no file evidence on affidavit.

¶40

Feeling aggrieved, appellant bank preferred the appeal.

¶41

As would appear from the record that now appellant bank is

¶42

prosecuting the appeal. Record shows that either there was gross negligence and callousness on the part of the concerned bank

¶43

officer or there could be some collusion as the amount of more

¶44

than Rs.1.00 crore was lying recoverable from the borrower right

¶45

from the year 2010, when the loan account became NPA. It is

¶46

not clear as to why the concerned bank officer or legal officer has

¶47

not taken any interest in the matter? It is also not clear as to

¶48

why evidence on affidavit was not filed despite granting sufficient

¶49

time by the learned DRT?Despite dismissal of the O.A. proceeding, even in the recall application if evidence on affidavit

¶50

was prepared why it was not filed? All these issues need an

¶51

appropriate probe by the competent authority of the bank so that responsibility of the concerned officer of the bank or authorized

¶52

officer or the law officer of the bank or any other officer

¶53

¶54

concerned can be fixed. Appropriate inquiry be initiated against

¶55

the concerned officer so that huge amount of public money may

¶56

not go waste.

¶57

Further, learned counsel for the appellant bank would submit

¶58

that evidence on affidavit is prepared and learned counsel may be permitted to file the same. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant bank I found it appropriate that liberty be given to the bank to file evidence on

¶59

affidavit before the learned DRT so that T.A. proceeding may

¶60

further go on. Accordingly, appeal deserves to be allowed to that extent.

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

Appeal is allowed without going into the merit of the case.

¶63

Impugned order dated 17.06.2019 is set aside. Order dated

¶64

16.04.2019 is also set aside. Costs easy.

¶65

Appellant bank is directed to file the evidence on affidavit

¶66

before the learned DRT positively by 28.03.2025. If evidence on

¶67

affidavit is not filed, liberty given to the appellant shall stand

¶68

closed. Learned DRT would decide the T.A. in accordance with

¶69

law. If affidavit on evidence is filed by the bank in compliance of

¶70

¶71

the order, then learned DRT would decide the T.A. in accordance

¶72

with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶73

Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Chairman – cum – Managing Director of the appellant bank and the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of

¶74

Finance, New Delhi for information and necessary action as observed in the body of the judgement.

¶75

File be consigned to record room.

¶76

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶77

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

¶78

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of February, 2025.

¶79

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶80

Dated : 18.02.2025 21/pkb

¶81

Indian Bank v. M/S Shree Krishna International and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S Shree Krishna International and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Unilife Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Unilife Medical Services Private Limited versus State Bank of India Guwahati

Sri Venkatewara Engineering versus Thotakura Prasad Rao

Pabitra Pran Saikia versus Union Bank of India

Priyanka Shyam versus Rojot Kumar Baruah

Punjab National Bank versus Rojot Kumar Baruah