Allowed

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank & Others

DRT23 Nov 2023MA/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In M.A. 57 of 2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad allowed the applicant company's application for the return of original documents (Ex.A1 to A19) retained by the Tribunal during proceedings, directing the registry to return them upon obtaining an undertaking to resubmit the originals if required.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to return original documents (Ex.A1 to A19) to applicant against undertaking to resubmit when required.

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2023)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23rd DAy OF, NOVEMBER, 2023 PRESENT: SRI. GUMMADI GoPIcHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

M.A. NO. 57 0F 2023 IN sA. NO. 465 0F 2015

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Pocharam Infrastructure pvt Ltd. At H.No. 1-1 1-220lA, Gurumurthy Lane, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

IDBI Bank Ltd, At Mahavir House, Basheerbagh Square, Hyderabad. pin-500029. And others.

¶8

.... Respondent/s

¶9

This Mrsceilaneous Apprication is fired by the petitioner/Appricant seeking return of originar documents marked as Ex.A1 to A1g to the Appricant company against the substitution of certified copies certified ty this Tribunal.

¶10

This application is resisted by the Respondent Bank by firing counter. It is contended that the 1't Respondent bank has fired a compraint before cBI against the m isrepresentation made by the Applicants and so, the documents filed by the Applicants cannot be returned at this stage. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel prayed to dismiss the M.A.

¶11

Heard arguments.

¶12

Now, the point for is whether the Applicant is entitled for return of the origi. ht for? {f^i*iw2 3 \I

¶13

As per the record, it is crear that sA 465/15 fired by the Appricant was allowed holding that the Applicant has not deposited the tiue deeds for creating mortgage in favour of the Respondent Bank. In crder to establish that the Applicant has not created any mortgage in favour of the Respondent Bank' the Applicant has filed certain documents which are marked as Ex,A1 to 19' It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondents No.1& 2 have not challenged the orders passed by this Tribunal dt.15. 03.2023 in the above sA till date.

¶14

So in the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no need to retain the documents fired by the Appricant which are marked as Ex.A1 to A19, so, the said documents can be returned to the Appricant by obtaining an undertaking to the effect that the Applicant company would resubmit the said documents when ever required by this Tribunar. ' with Y these observations, MA 57/23 is allowed

¶15

Registry is directed to return the original docurments which are marked as Ex'A1 to A19 to the Applicant by obtaining an undertaking affidavit to the effect that they woulcJ resubrnii the said original documents whenever required hy this Tribunal.

¶16

sd/ -

¶17

Presiding Officer

¶18

,#r#;-<br>wsp-
; *. 2tiloy )n?1 *
W.#N

¶19

T R UE
.3:
tu.
Assf. Riiv16tvD
*ni.i';|;y;;16

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank & Others

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

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kotte Tirupathi

Sri Mansoor Ahmed versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Guru Charan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Communications and Services