Dismissed

Canara Bank v. M/s Ssjv Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others

DRT6 Jun 2024TA/136/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking permission to cross-examine a bank witness. The court held that documentary evidence and affidavits already furnished details of invoked bank guarantees, making further cross-examination an exercise in futility.

What did the court decide?

IA No.151/2023 stands dismissed. Costs to the opposite party.

Canara Bank versus M/s Ssjv Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 6^th Day of June, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

IA. No.151 of 2023

¶6

In TA. No.136 of 2022

¶7

Mr. Manohar Shetty

¶8

S/o. Late Narayana Shetty Residing at No.861, 13^th Main, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore.

¶9

. . . Petitioner/ 2^nd Defendant VERSUS

¶10

1. Canara Bank

¶11

A Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer Of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its Head Office at No.112, JC Road Bangalore – 560 002. . . . 1^st Respondent/Applicant

¶12

2. M/s. SSJV Projects Pvt., Ltd

¶13

Represented by its Director A Company Registered under the Companies Act 1956 Having its registered office at 12^th Floor, SN Towers, 25.2, M.G Road Bangalore – 560001 . . . 2^nd Respondent/1^st Defendant

¶14

3. Mrs. Harini Shetty

¶15

W/o. Mr. Manohar Shetty Residing at No.861, 13^th Main, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Bangalore

¶16

¶17

4. M/s. Ghataprabha Agro Farms Pvt., Ltd.

¶18

A Company Registered under the Companies Act 1956 Having its registered office at Plot No.3892, MHT Hills, 2^nd Venture, Opp. JNTU College Kukkatpaly Hyderabad – 500 072

¶19

5. M/s. Mandaragiri Greenfields Pvt Ltd

¶20

A Company Registered under the Companies Act 1956 Having its Registered office at Flat No.102, Sri Ramana Enclave, Madhura Nagar, SR Nagar Post Hyderabad – 500 038.

¶21

6. M/s. Dronagiri Farms Pvt., Ltd

¶22

A Company Registered under the Companies Act 1956 Having its Registered office at Flat No.103, Sri Ramana Enclave, Madhura Nagar, SR Nagar Post Hyderabad – 500 038.

¶23

7. Ashwini Shetty

¶24

W/o. Sujith Shetty Residing at No.W-377, East Main Road Anna Nagar, West Extension Chennai – 600 101 . . . Respondents 3 to 7/ defendants 3 to 7

¶25

Ld. Counsel for Petitioner/2^nd Defendant :- Adv. Sh. Bhagvath Krishnan Ld. Counsel for 1^st Respondent / Applicant :- Adv. Sh. M.L.Ganesh

¶26

: - ORDERS ON IA NO.151/2023 - :

¶27

The 2^nd Defendant files this IA seeking permission to cross – examine the AW1 Mr.S.P.Sivakumar. The application is supported by an affidavit by the 2^nd Defendant who is the Director of the 1^st Defendant Company.

¶28

¶29

It is averred in the affidavit that the case of the Applicant Bank is that certain bank guarantees issued by them were invoked towards the beneficiaries, which fell due recoverable by Defendants. It is also deposed that the Proof Affidavit of AW1 does not contain the details of the dates and documents of invocation of bank guarantee. The evidence by affidavit submitted by the bank had spoken to a fact that “first Defendant requested for bank guarantee commissions on annual basis and the same was accepted by the bank” – which is denied by the 2^nd Defendant and no proof is produced. In view of the above, the 2^nd Defendant craves permission to cross-examine the said Mr.S.P.Sivakumar, AW1.

¶30

The Applicant Bank has filed the counter affidavit with a prayer to dismiss the IA. In the counter affidavit, certain events and the details of the proceedings on the writ side and under the SARFAESI Act and the other connected proceedings are detailed. It is submitted that the instant application is not filed by the Defendant No.1 Company, but by D2 in his personal capacity. The contention of the 2^nd Defendant that NHPC Ltd. has not invoked Bank Guarantee, the same is to be demonstrated or rebutted through positive evidence. Cross – examination cannot be permitted before the Tribunal. It is also seen from the counter that the bank guarantees invoked in total 41 with the bank guarantee numbers the amount, the beneficiary and the date of such invocation are all furnished in the counter.

¶31

During the course of arguments, this Tribunal directed the Applicant Bank to give further details of invocation of bank guarantees and the letter addressed by the bank demanding D1 to defray the amounts invoked. Accordingly a memo dated 31.05.2024 is filed on 03.06.2024. In the memo further details of four bank guarantees invoked and paid to beneficiary namely NTPC Ltd. along with the necessary details are also furnished.

¶32

¶33

Having heard the Ld. Counsel on either side, this Tribunal has considered the bone of contention of the 2^nd Defendant to insist for cross – examination of the bank witness. The sole ground is that the details of the bank guarantees invoked with respect to its number, beneficiary and the amount and the dates of such invocation is sought to be revealed through the cross-examination. It is seen that the same details are furnished by counter and further memo filed on 03.06.2024, which copies are already in the knowledge of the Defendant No.2. The witness even if recalled for crossexamination, the same would be parroted again.

¶34

The Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.2 relied on the ruling in Sonu Textiles, Vs. Punjab National Bank 2007 SCC Online BOM 935 to emphasize the need of cross examination. In the said ruling, it is held that “it will be difficult to provide for any straight jacket formula universally applicable as it would primarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, whether or not the Tribunal should pass an order for production of witness for cross-examination or not. However, while exercising such power, the Tribunal has to keep in mind that the purpose of cross-examination is normally to test the veracity of the witness and to bring true and correct facts on record. These are primarily matters relating to procedural law and which should be enforced objectively and with clear intent to serve the ends of justice.” (Para-9).

¶35

In the light of the above guidelines, this Tribunal had perused the documents annexed with the proof affidavit Exh.A54 to Exh.A191 are the relevant documents concerning the bank guarantees, showing the names of the beneficiaries, the extensions from time to time thereof and these voluminous documents along with the details furnished in the counter and further memo filed will bring the truth on record and correctness of the facts. The recalling of the witness in these circumstances will be only

¶36

¶37

an exercise to repeat the facts which are already spoken to in evidence by way of affidavit. In view of the above, the prayer in the IA does not serve any practical purpose, but would be only a wastage of time and an exercise in futility. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the IA. Consequently, the following

¶38

IA No.151/2023 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(A.S.JAYACHANDRA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶41

(Dictated to PS who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 6^th Day of June, 2024)

¶42

Canara Bank v. M/s Ssjv Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s Ssjv Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Others

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd.

K Rajarajan versus Indian Overseas Bank

Sriharan Sripathmanathan, represented by his Power of Attorney Mr. E. Sivanandam versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

S Vanaja Rani versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Garuda Vayu Sakthi Ltd. Rep By Mr N Srinivasan And Three Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Gulbarga Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd.