Canara Bank v. Satilal Avchit Koli
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed the respondent's attempt to rely on a delayed written statement to reduce the claimed loan amount from Rs. 60 lac to Rs. 45 lac. The Tribunal held the written statement lacked merit and the claim was uncontroverted, thereby decreeing the original application.
What did the court decide?
Decree of the original application passed; respondents ordered to pay the decree amount secured by a charge on mentioned immovable properties and partial recovery from personal assets.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET
| 21.03. Sr. No |
2024 .69 O.A.No.115/2023 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Classific ation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 115/2023 Canara Bank .. Applicant Versus Satilal Avchit Koli & others .. Respondent Mr. S.R.Vakil h/for Mr. Vani Sanjeev Ramanlal - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.M.Sangle – Advocate for respondents 1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has filed written statement and he has received the same without annexure. The Ld. Registrar in its order dated 31.01.2024 it is recorded that the statutory period for filing written statement is over. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that wrongly it is mentioned that there are annexure but in fact there is no annexure. 3. In this matter the respondent has filed written statement with delay condonation application. The availment of loan is not denied by the respondents. Even if the written statement is considered, it does not disclose any cause of action in favour of respondent to deny the repayment. 4. The grievance of the respondents is only that the bank has disbursed only an amount of Rs. 45 lac and not Rs.60 lac. As to be stated somewhere else they can claim damages from the bank but payment of Rs. 45 lac has to be made. 5. The mere denial will not entitle them to stop making payment to the bank. The exception of COVID and others are also taken by the respondent. Even if the delay is condoned and written statement is taken on record and considered, the Tribunal has not found any merit in the matter. 6. In the prayer clause of written statement, the respondent prayed for direction that the bank may be directed to accept Rs. 30 as full and final settlement. 7. The Tribunal leave it to the bank about the settlement with the respondents and accept the amount. The delay in filing the written statement is condoned and written statement is taken on record. |
[APK] (OA No.115/2023) Page 1 of 2
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should admit the delayed written statement and allow its contents to defeat the claim.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Canara Bank
- respondent
Satilal Avchit Koli & others
Coram
Vimal Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court