Dismissed

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. State Bank of India

DRAT15 May 2025TRANSFER PETITION/3/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

According to the single judge hearing the transfer application under Section 17A(2) RDB Act, the Appellant claimed bias by the Presiding Officer, DRT-I, regarding denial of evidence filing. The court held that failure to grant transfer because mere procedural lapse does not equate to bias. The transfer application was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be disposed expeditiously by the conce

What did the court decide?

Transfer of O.A. 457 of 2011 from DRT-I, Hyderabad dismissed.

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Transfer Petition No. 03 of 2025 (Arising out of O.A. 457 of 2011 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶4

Order No. 04

¶5

15.5.2025

¶6

Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels & Another … Applicants -VsState Bank of India & 6 Others … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Appellant in person

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

For Admission

¶10

Heard the Applicant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, in person and perused the record.

¶11

Instant Transfer Petition is filed under Section 17A(2) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for transfer of O.A. 457 of 2011 (State Bank of India -vs- Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels) from the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad to any other DRT.

¶12

Applicant in person submits that the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad is biased against him as he is continuously passing orders against him. Secondly, when the matter was ordered to be proceeded ex parte and the same was set aside; thereafter, Bank was given an opportunity to file evidence but the same was not filed despite granting sufficient opportunities. Thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. Even written argument of the Bank was taken on record. It is submitted that no opportunity of filing evidence was given to the Applicant herein who is Defendant in the O.A. proceedings. It is further submitted that the application for recall of the order dated 11.4.2025 is filed which is pending but in the order dated 11.4.2025 matter was posted for ‘Defendant Argument’ on 25.4.2025.

¶13

¶14

Applicant submits that the effect of the matter shows that the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad is biased against him.

¶15

Having heard the Applicant in person and going through the records, it is abundantly clear that the ground for transfer is simply that opportunity of pleading evidence was not given to the Appellant herein and the Learned Presiding Officer posted the matter for argument for which an application for recalling of the order is pending. If the Tribunal is not convinced with the contents of an application and passes an order against a party, it does not amount to bias against the party. The concerned litigant/party always has a right to proceed in accordance with law. However, in the present case, if an application is pending for recall of the order dated 11.4.2025; it would be in the interest of justice that the Learned DRT should dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. However, I do not find any ground for transfer of the case from the file of DRT-I, Hyderabad to any other DRT.

¶16

Accordingly, the Transfer Application is dismissed.

¶17

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

¶18

File be consigned to Record room.

¶19

Order dictated and pronounced in open Court.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶21

Dated: 15^th May, 2025 01/ac

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v. State Bank of India

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

Similar cases

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus M S Annapurna Oil and Mineral

Hdfc Bank versus M S North East Glass Industries

Indusind Bank Limited versus Manohara Greens Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Kanta Shah versus a P Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank Limited

Jasmine Industries versus Union Bank of India