Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Suresh Kumar Saraff And Anr.

DRT7 Jul 2026MA/15/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application to treat an earlier cost deposit with the Bar Association as valid per a previous order despite the deposit occurring without a specific order. It restored an Order Application and listed the matter for evidence verification.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the current application by treating the earlier cost deposit to the Bar Association as valid in compliance with a prior order; restored Order Application No.351/2011.

State Bank of India versus Sri Suresh Kumar Saraff… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2026)

¶1

ORDER SHEET

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI

¶3

IA-case no.687 /2026 in MA/15/2026

¶4

in MA/14/2023

¶5

	State Bank of India Vs .	Applicant
Dateof	. :• Sri SureshKr.Saraff & Anr OrderwithSint	Defendant(s) Office action withdate and
Order	gaure	dated signature ofparties when necessary.

¶6

!3.07.2026

¶7

CORRIGENDUM

¶8

It has been noticed that inadvertently some typographical mistake is occurred in the

¶9

second para and fifth para of the order dated 07.07.2026 in the instant matter.

¶10

Therefore, O.A. No.351/2011 may be read as TO.A. No.1154/2017.

¶11

This order shall form the part and parcel of the order dated 07.07.2026. The other

¶12

portions of the said order wi!I remain the same.

¶13

,,. ------ (RAKESH~I TIWARI)

¶14

Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri

¶15

ORDER SHEET

¶16

DEBTS R IA-ca	ECOVERY TRIBUNAL,S seno.687/2026·inMA/15/2026 inMA/14/2023 State Bank_c'f_India	ILIGURI Applicant
I Dateof	Vs SriSureshKr.Saraff&Anr Order with Signature	Defendants Office action with date and dated
Order		signatureof ti h
		pares wen necessary.

Item No.04

Order No.03

07.07.2026

Present:

Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Oebanjan Chakraborty and Mr. Saptarshi Kar along with

¶22

Chief Manager, Mr. Rajnath Prakash.

¶23

Counsel for the defendants : None. The instant M.A. has been filed by the applicant bank for giving direction to the Registry of this Tribunal to treat the cost deposited by the applicant bank before the ORT, Siliguri Bar

¶24

Associatio,1 as per the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal by disposing of M.A. No.14/2023.

¶25

~.A. was allowed and the O.A. No.351/2011was restored to its original position subject to From perusal of the record it transpires that earlier O.A. No.351/2011 was disposed of by this Tribunal on dated 15.03.2023 on the basis of submission of the proxy counsel of the conducting Counsel of the bank that the loan account has already been settled but later on M.A. No.14/2023 has been filed with a submission that actually the loan account was not settled and inadvertently the proxy counsel had made the submission regarding settlement and ~ the M.A. was not filed within the statuary period of limitation and thus one I.A. for condoning the delay was also filed and after hearing to the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank, payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited iri District Legal Services Authority, Siliguri but

¶26

it has been deposited to the DRT, Siliguri Bar Association.

¶27

It is pertinent to mention here that without any order of this Tribunal how the amount was deposited before the ORT, Siliguri Bc:1r Association and most importantly it should not have been received by the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association until and unless any specific order

¶28

was passed by this Tribunal to deposit the same to the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association ..

¶29

. However, the said amount has already been derosited to the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association and the bank happens to be the custodian of the public money and the submission of the ld. Counsel of the bank ir,• that huge amount of the public money is involved in the matter and thus let the amount 1lj deposited to th~~.l_ S~uri Bar Association . be treated as per the order passed on dated 02.04.2024 A..: ~ disposing the M.A. No.14/2023. '..--

¶30

Accordingly, the instarit M.A. is allowed and the let the O.A. case bearing No.351/2011 be restored and let it be placed before the Registry Bench for evidence verification on dated 22.07.2026.

¶31

List this matter on 22.07.2026 before the Registry for evidence verification.

¶32

¶33

(RAKESH ~WARI) Presiding Officer

State Bank of India v. Sri Suresh Kumar Saraff And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Suresh Kumar Saraff And Anr.

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

State Bank of India versus Smt. Meenu Arora

Punjab National Bank versus Balwinder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Kiran Sao Rai

Harpreet Kaur versus Indian Overseas Bank

M/S Japji Filling Station versus Bank of Baroda

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Riyaz Ahmad Tantary (Sole Prop. of M/S Riyaz and Brothers)