Dismissed

Thota Parameswara Surya Chandra Rao v. the Visakhapatnam Co. Operative Bank Limited Represented by Authorised Officer

DRAT1 Sept 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Misc. Appeal, the DRAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal filed by a debtor challenging the DRT Visakhapatnam's refusal to allow an amendment to a SARFAESI Act affidavit. The Tribunal held the amendment was sought to delay proceedings and allowed the DRT order to stand, dismissing the appeal in limine at the admission stage. The Chairperson found no sufficient ground for the belated amendment.

What did the court decide?

appeal dismissed in limine at admission stage; file consigned to Record Room.

Thota Parameswara Surya Chandra Rao versus the Visakhapatnam… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Misc. Appeal Dy.No.980 of 2025 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶4

KOLKATA

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

CHAIRPERSON

¶7

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 980 of 2025 (Arising out of I.A. No. 1931 of 2025 in SA No. 163 of 2021 in DRT-Visakhapatnam)

¶8

Thota Parameshwara Surya Chandra Rao, S/o. (Late) Jagannayakulu, Hindu, Aged: 62 Years, H. No. 16-65 & 66, Prahladapuram, Visakhapatnam - 530027.

¶9

.…Appellants

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Authorised Officer, The Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gopalapatnam Branch, Visakhapatnam - 530016.

¶12

The Branch Manager, The Visakhapatnam Co-operative Bank Ltd, D. No. 2-3-27, Road No. 1/C, Cooperative Bank Colony, Nagole Branch, Hyderabad-500068.

¶13

…….. Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellants Mr. Vedula Kasi Viswanath, Learned Counsel (virtual) Counsel for Respondents None

¶15

JUDGMENT : 1^st September, 2025

¶16

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶17

Admission I.A. No. 547 of 2025 I.A. No. 548 of 2025

¶18

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

¶19

¶20

. Misc. Appeal Dy. No.980 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata Instant Appeal has been referred against an order dated 11^th August, 2025 passed by Learned DRT Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 1931 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2105 of 2025 in S.A. No. 163 of 2021 whereby Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. No. 1931 of 2025 and I.A. No. 2105 of 2025 on the ground that SA is pending since 2021 and there is nothing on record to show as to how the Appellant is filing the amendment Application with a considerable delay? Only purpose and intention of the Appellant is to drag the proceedings. No ground was found to be made out by the Learned DRT and accordingly, I.A.s were dismissed.

¶21

Feeling aggrieved by the order, Appellant preferred the Appeal.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant came to know about the factum of a wrong statement made by the Authorised Officer in the affidavit filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. At later stage he found that the details of the secured assets are wrongly mentioned. Accordingly, amendment is sought for.

¶23

I have gone through the record and found that the Appellant has failed to show any sufficient ground for seeking amendment at a belated stage. Proceedings under the Securitisation Act under Section 17 are summary in nature. Affidavit under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed in the year 2018. Appellant had full knowledge of the same and then Securitisation Application

¶24

¶25

. Misc. Appeal Dy. No.980 of 2025-DRAT-Kolkata under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was filed but no such ground was taken. It shows that the only purpose of the Appellant is to drag the proceedings pending since 2021. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Appeal is dismissed in limini at admission stage.

¶28

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶29

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

¶30

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1^st day of September, 2025.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶32

6 /tp

¶33

Dated 2025

Thota Parameswara Surya Chandra Rao v. the Visakhapatnam Co. Operative Bank Limited Represented by Authorised Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thota Parameswara Surya Chandra Rao v. the Visakhapatnam Co. Operative Bank Limited Represented by Authorised Officer

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

Similar cases

Trishakti Traders versus Union Bank of India

Jai Lokenath Oil Extraction Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

G Srinivas versus Bank of Baroda

B.G.A Realtors versus Tata Capital Limited

Kalicharan Saha and Another versus The Federal Bank Limited

Dipali Biswas versus Punjab National Bank