Partly allowed

chakradhara agarbathi industries v. Syndicate Bank

DRT26 Feb 2025RA/4/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal partly allowed a review application. Correcting an apparent error where the original order listed all defendants despite the bank admitting non-prosecution of the fourth defendant. The court held that merits-based challenges regarding scheme application and interest calculation are not maintainable in review.

What did the court decide?

Review application partly allowed; revised order was issued correcting the name of defendants to Defendants 1 to 3.

chakradhara agarbathi industries versus Syndicate Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2 AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 26rH DAy OF FEBRUARyt 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B.com, L.LB.(Hons.), M.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Review Application No.O4 ot 2024 In

¶6

OA No.86O /2OLg

¶7

M/s. Chakradhara Agarbathi Industries Rep. by its^{partner p.} Venkateswara Reddy Aged 45 years, R/o Survey No.519

¶8

Plot No.2B, Industrial Estate, Kallur Mandal Kurnool District - 518003.

¶9

P. Venkateswara Reddy

¶10

S/o Late Chenna Reddy

¶11

Aged 45 years

¶12

87/144 Madhavi Nagar

¶13

Beside Ramachandra Mission Kurnool District-5 18002.

¶14

B. Sahadeva Reddy

¶15

S/o B. Subba Reddy (Late)

¶16

Aged 46 years,

¶17

1/154 Patha Kandukuru

¶18

Allagadda Mandal

¶19

Kurnool District - 518 543.

¶20

A. Srinivasa Reddy

¶21

S/o a. Venkata Ramana Reddy

¶22

Aged 42 years, R/o 87 lL75t-4

¶23

Flat No.103, Srinivas Kalyani Nagar

¶24

Kurnool District - 518 002.

¶25

......Applicants/Defendants 1 TO 4

Versus

Canara Bank

SME Kurnool Branch

H ydera bad.

Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶31

. . . . . Respondent/Applica nt

¶32

07x'f

¶33

Page 2 of 5

¶34

Rev.Appln.No'o⁴ I^{2024in oA 860/2018}

¶35

Counsel^{for the Review APPlicants} Counsel^{for the Res7ondentBank}

¶36

:Mr. B. SanjaY^Kumar : Mr. Manav^{Gecil Thomas}

¶37

-:ORDER;-

¶38

the defendants^{1 to 4 in OA} 1. ThiS RCV|EW Application^{is filed bY} No.B60/2018 to review orders^dated 24.05.2024 Passed^{in the OA'}

¶39

The respondent bank i.e.,^{the applicant bank filed counter opposlng} the application.

¶40

aJ. Heard learned^{counsel appearingfor the review applicantsand} learned counsel^{for the respondentbank' Perused the material} record.

¶41

It is contended^{by learned counsel appearingfor the review} applicants-defendants^{(hereinafter "applicants")that whilepassing} the orders in oA,^{the Tribunal in para no.15 made observationon} applicationofSec.l3oftheCGTMSEschemewithouttherebeingany pleadingorargumentbyeitheroftheparties.However,Sec.l3ofthe scheme does^{not apply to the case of applicants. Furtherthe Tribunal} failed to consider application^{of section9 of the scheme even though} there was specific^{pleading. Learned counsel would also contendthat} the Tribunal^passed decree^{against4th defendantalso in spite of} withdrawal memo filed by^{the bank on 28.03.2024. It is further} contended that as^per memo^{dated08'01 .2024 filed by the} respondent bank the amount^{recoverable was onlyRs.18,22,976/-} and without taking it into consideration^{the Tribunalpassedorder for} Rs.37,18,306/-. The Tribunal also failed to consider the^{point raised} by applicants about charging interest^(CASA Debit^Interest Capitatized) even after ctassifyins rn" urr"bffiAs admitted

¶42

Page 3 of 5

¶43

Rev.Apptn. No.0 4/2024 in OA 8EO/2018

¶44

in the additional written arguments dated 28.03.2024, the respondent bank admitted of committing m ista kes/irreg urarities in filing the oA however, in the finar order the Tribunar did not discuss such irregularities and allowed the oA instead of dismissal. It is further contended that the contents of cross-exa m ination of AW- 1 were not referred in the order because of which the admissions of committing mistakes did not see the light. Learned counsel contended under Sec.114, Order 47 CpC the Tribunal can consider fresh evidence and also sufficient reason for reviewing its own order. with these contentions, learned counsel sought to review the order dated 24.05.2024.

¶45

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-applicant bank (hereinafter "respondent bank',) while denying the adverse averments of review application, contends that OA claim of Rs.37,18,306/- was confirmed even during cross-examination of AW1. The learned counsel would admit contents of memo dated 28.03.2024. The facts with regard to CGTMSE scheme were categorically argued by the counsel in the OA. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no rule not to charge interest once account becomes NPA and it is against the banking principles. Regarding amount stated in memo dated 08.0t.2024, it is stated that CGTMSE claim amount of Rs.18,22,976/- was adjusted towards loan account but it is also stated that though subsidy is received from the Government, as and when borrower repays his outstanding loan the entire subsidy has to be repaid to the Government. Learned counsel also submitted that the OA was adjudicated after filing necessary documents by both the parties. The review application can only be filed to correct the errors apparent on the face of the record and not to re-adiudicate the matter. The remedy *WGr:,\appticants is

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

Rev'Appln.No.o⁴ 12024^{in oA 860/2018}

¶48

only Appeal.^{With these submissions, learned counsel sought for} dismissal^{of the review application'}

¶49

Now the^{point that arises for adjudicationis:-} Whether the^{review appticants made out any valid ground for} reviewing the^{Order dated 24'05'2024 passed in OA} No.860/2018?

¶50

The OA^{was allowedvide order dated 24'05'2024on hearing both} sides and^{also by considering the material documentsfiled by both} parties. The^{present review applicationis filed under Section 19(1)} rlw Sec.22 2^{(h) of the of the RDB Act, 1993' Whereas'Rule 5A(1)}

¶51

of Debts^{RecoveryTribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 deals with the} scope of Review^{and it reads as hereunder:}

¶52

"5A Review

¶53

(1) Any party considering^{itself aggrievedby an order} made by the Tribunal^{on accountof some mistake or} error apparent on^{the fact of record desiresto obtaina} review of the order^{made against him, may applyfor a} review of the order^{to the Tribunal which had made the} orde r. "

¶54

B. It is clear from the above^{provisionthat a review applicationis} maintainable on the^{ground of some mistake or error apparenton the} face of the record.

¶55

In the^present case, the applicant^{bank in OA admitsof not pressing} claim against 4th defendant^{vide memo dated 28.03.2024anda} perusal of written arguments filed in OA^{filed by the learned counsel} for bank also confirms the same'^{Hence the only mistakeof} mentioning "Defendants" instead of^{"Defendants 1 to 3" is self-} evident in the order dated 24.05.2024.^{The said mistake apparent on} the face of the record can be corrected in review.^{However,the other}

¶56

ffi>'a

¶57

Page 5 of 5

¶58

Rev.Appln.No.0 4 / 2024 in OA 860/2018

¶59

grounds touching the merits of the case cannot be considered in the review application.

¶60

In view of the above observation, the review application is partly allowed. A revised order is issued accordingly.

¶61

No costs. communicate a copy of this order to the concerned rearned Recovery officer and parties and also upload in the official website.

¶62

(Typed to my dictation by the. pS, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26h day of February, ZOZS). N*

¶63

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

chakradhara agarbathi industries v. Syndicate Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

chakradhara agarbathi industries v. Syndicate Bank

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

The Axis Bank Limited., versus Siris Impex

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Ltd. versus Raghuveer Reddy

The Axis Bank Limited versus Shree Arihant Corporation

Narmula Santhosh Kumar versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Kante Sai Charan

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus S Satish Chandra Reddy