Allowed

Dnb Food Processing Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT16 Apr 2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench quashed adverse professional observations made by the Lower Tribunal against the appellant's counsel regarding the reliance on an overruled judgment and set aside the consequential penalty costs imposed on the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Adverse observations in para 12 of the impugned order were quashed and the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed on the appellant was set aside.

Dnb Food Processing Private Limited versus Punjab National… — Service and Employment | DRAT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 297 of 2026

¶4

(Arising out of T.O.A. No 636 of 2017 – DRT-Siliguri )

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Order No.

¶7

16.04.2026

¶8

DNB Food Processing Private Limited Having Office At 20, Nandalal Basu Sarani, Opp. Dr. Basu's Nursing Home, Collegepara, PO & PS Siliguri, Dist. Darjeeling – 734001.

¶9

2.Smt Nandita Dutta Residing at 20, Nandalal Basu Sarani, Opp To Dr. Basu's Nursing Home, Collegepara, Siliguri, Darjeeling – 734001.

¶10

Sri Debabrata Dutta Residing at 20, Nandalal Basu Sarani, Opp Dr. Basu's Nursing Home, Collegepara, Siliguri, Darjeeling – 734001.

¶11

... Appellant

¶12

--Vs--

¶13

Punjab National Bank, Jalpaiguri Branch, Thana Road, Jalpaiguri, PO Jalpaiguri, PS Kotwali, Dist. Jalpaiguri, 735101.

¶14

Sri Ramendu Chattopadhyay, Residing at Dharsa, Palpara, Jagacha, Gip Colony, Howrah 711112.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Appellant : Mr. Prasenjit Pal , ld. adv. For Respondent :

¶17

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶18

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the

¶19

records. Instant appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶20

Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.02.2026 passed by learned DRT, Siliguri in I.A. 132 of 2026 and I.A. 24 of 2024 arising out of T.O.A. 636 of 2017 whereby learned DRT dismissed the I.A. 24 of 2024 filed by the appellant herein with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Further, certain observations

¶21

¶22

were made by learned DRT in Paragraph 12 of the impugned order.

¶23

At the very outset learned counsel Mr. Presenjit Pal fairly submits that he is pressing the appeal only to the relief ‘c’ and ‘d’ in the memo of appeal which relates to expunge the adverse remarks made in para 12 of the impugned order and to waive the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by learned DRT.

¶24

As far as merits of the matter are concerned learned DRT dismissed the I.A. 24 of 2024 which was filed for dismissing the O.A. on certain grounds. It so appear that in the impugned order reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in M/s. Purnea Cold Storage Vs. The State Bank of India & Anr [AIR (2013) Pat-1, CWJC No.8746 of 2012] decided on 27.08.2012. Learned DRT after going through the record and the law on the subject found that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel was overruled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court in State Bank of India Vs. M/s. Purnea Cold Storage & Anr. (2013 SCC OnLine 1023). Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. 24 of 2024 and also made certain observations in Para 12 of the impugned order that learned counsel before placing reliance upon the judgment should satisfy himself whether the same is overruled or not?

¶25

As far as the observations made by the learned DRT are concerned, in Neeraj Garg Vs. Sarita Rani & Ors. [(2021)9 SCC 92] wherein placing reliance the case of Alok Kumar Roy

¶26

¶27

Vs. S.N.Sarma (AIR 1968 SC 453) Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even in cases of justified criticism, the language employed must be of utmost restrain.

¶28

If the remarks are required to be made about the conduct of an Advocate, who is placing reliance upon a particular judgment, although no doubt an overruled judgment should not have been placed before the Tribunal, but it may so happen that the same may have been placed inadvertently, every such omission or commission must be treated as unintentional which may not invite adverse remarks by the Tribunal.

¶29

The observation made by the learned DRT in Para 12 of the impugned order, although nowhere reflects that it was done with some ulterior motive, may affect the professional career of the learned counsel. We are of the considered view that observation made in Para 12 of the impugned order, which relates to the learned counsel of the appellant, were not required to be made and accordingly, the observations are quashed. Consequently, the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned DRT is also set aside.

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

Appeal is disposed of with the above observation. Consequently, appeal stands disposed of. All pending I.A.s stands disposed of. Costs easy.

¶32

File be consigned to record room.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶36

Court on this the 16^th day of April, 2026.

¶37

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶38

Dated : 16.04.2026 /pkb

Dnb Food Processing Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnb Food Processing Private Limited 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St Paul Educational Society Represented by Mrs B Cecilia Angel versus Clix Capital Services Private Limited Represented by Its Authorized Officer

M/S Safe Malda Rice Mill versus Hdfc Bank

State Bank of India versus Smt G Shakuntala

Sushil Kumar Ganeriwala versus Indian Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms Purno Gouri Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Jvine Development Pvt. Ltd.