Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Krishnan Ponnambalam

DRT9 Jan 2026OA/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank sought permission to retrieve original documents filed in a pending recovery application to produce them before the CBI. The Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the documents sought by the CBI were not part of the tribunal's record and thus their release was unjustified.

What did the court decide?

The Interlocutory Application seeking permission to retrieve original documents is dismissed.

State Bank of India versus Krishnan Ponnambalam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 9^th day of January, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

IA No.2108 of 2025 In

¶5

OA No.57 of 2023

¶6

State Bank of India Represented by its City Case Officer Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Red Cross Building, 2^nd Floor No.32, Montieth Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 …Petitioner / Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Krishnan Ponnambalam

¶9

S/o Arunachalam Ponnambalam (Late) No.3-63, MG Road, Ekambara Kuppam

¶10

Nagari, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh – 517 952

¶11

Mrs. K. Thamaraiselvi W/o Mr. Krishnan Ponnambalam No.3-63, MG Road, Ekambara Kuppam

¶12

Nagari, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh – 517 952 …Respondents / Defendants

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant praying to grant permission to the applicant bank to receive the original documents listed in the schedule to the IA from the case records and allow the applicant bank to substitute the said original documents listed in the schedule hereunder

¶15

with certified copies thereof.

¶16

¶17

Averments in the application

¶18

The OA No.57 of 2023 was filed against the respondents for recovery of an aggregate sum of Rs.5,73,39,790.46p as on 8.6.2022 together with further interest. The said application was filed on 20.10.2022 and the respondents entered appearance through their counter and filed their written statement. The applicant filed their proof affidavit along with original documents on 23.02.2024 before this Tribunal and the case is at the stage of marking of documents.

¶19

It has come to the knowledge of the bank that fraud has been committed by the respondents in connection with the aforesaid loan account. A case was registered against the respondents and as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the said case is now under CBI investigation. The CBI for carrying out the investigation had sought for original documents connected with the aforesaid loan account. Since the original documents connected with the aforesaid loan account were already filed before this Tribunal steps were taken to obtain certified copies of the documents and the same was obtained and handed over to the CBI officer by the Petitioner / Applicant bank. Though the certified copies have been received by the CBI, the CBI Officer is still insisting for the original documents connected with the loan account so as to ensure their investigation is carried out as per the procedure and have issued letter

¶20

¶21

dated 13.10.2025 addressed to the applicant bank seeking original documents connected with the aforesaid loan document. Hence this IA is filed seeking return of the original documents.

¶22

It is stated that retrieval of the documents that is filed in the above case is necessary due to the ongoing CBI investigation connected with the aforesaid loan account which is in public interest. It is also stated that the retrieval of documents as mentioned in the schedule to the application will not prejudice the respondents and the applicant is ready and willing to file the certified copy of the documents in substitution of the originals before this Tribunal and is also willing to undertake to produce the aforesaid original documents mentioned in the schedule hereunder as and when directed by this Tribunal.

¶23

Counter of Respondents / Defendants

¶24

The application is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that the Original Application was filed and that documents were produced by the applicant bank. It is also submitted by the applicant that the original documents were filed before the Tribunal and have already been marked as exhibits, as recorded by this Tribunal.

¶25

It is stated that once the documents are marked as exhibits, they form part of the judicial record, and the custody and control of such documents vest

¶26

¶27

exclusively with this Tribunal. The applicant has no right to seek the original documents until completion of the proceedings.

¶28

The allegations relating to fraud and reference to CBI investigation are denied as irrelevant to the present IA. The applicant bank has not produced any order or direction of any competent court requiring withdrawal of original documents from this Tribunal.

¶29

The certified copies of the documents were already obtained and furnished to the investigating agency and hence the plea that original documents are required in unsustainable. It is stated that judicial custody of documents cannot be disturbed merely on the basis of an administrative request or insistence by any investigating agency. It is also stated that once the documents are filed and marked, it loses any right to seek their return till final disposal of the case.

¶30

The undertaking offered by the applicant bank is denied as insufficient. If the original documents are removed from the custody of this Tribunal, there is a real risk of tampering, alteration, misplacement or loss, which will cause serious and irreversible prejudice to the respondents.

¶31

The applicant bank though a public sector bank is only a litigant before this Tribunal and cannot place itself above the Tribunal or control court records. After documents are marked, no party has the right to take them

¶32

¶33

back. Thus contending it is prayed that the IA filed by the applicant seeking return of original documents be dismissed.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties.

¶35

A perusal of the letter dated 13.10.2025 of the CBI to the Petitioner seeking to produce the documents with regard to the case reveals that the following documents are sought to be produced:

¶36

(a) Original disbursement voucher.

¶37

(b) Request letter for the disbursement from the borrower.

¶38

(c) Date of realization of demand draft along with the beneficiary account details for the demand draft No. IOI-000500918649 duly certified as per Bankers’ Books of Evidence and Indian Evidence Act.

¶39

After hearing the Ld. Counsel and after perusing the documents on records, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the IA is liable to be allowed?

¶40

Findings and Order

¶41

The Original Application in OA No.57 of 2023 is pending adjudication and the applicant bank has filed its proof affidavit along with original documents, which are presently on the record of this Tribunal. The case is at the stage of marking of documents.

¶42

¶43

The present Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking permission to receive back the original documents filed before this Tribunal and to substitute the same with certified copies, on the ground that the said originals are required to be produced before the CBI in connection with an ongoing investigation.

¶44

It is seen that the sole basis for filing the present IA is the letter dated 13.10.2025 issued by the CBI calling upon the applicant bank to produce certain original documents, viz., (a) original disbursement voucher, (b) request letter for disbursement from the borrower, and (c) date of realization of demand draft along with beneficiary account details pertaining to the specified demand draft.

¶45

A careful scrutiny of the said letter dated 13.10.2025 and a comparative examination of the documents filed before this Tribunal reveal that the documents sought by the CBI are not the documents filed by the applicant bank in the present Original Application and do not form part of the records of this Tribunal. Though original documents have admittedly been filed by the applicant bank before this Tribunal, the applicant has not demonstrated that the documents sought by the CBI are among those documents. The IA proceeds on an assumption that the documents required by the investigating agency are in the custody of this Tribunal, which assumption is not borne out from the record.

¶46

¶47

In such circumstances, there is no necessity or occasion for this Tribunal to order release or withdrawal of the original documents filed before it, when the documents sought by the CBI are not part of the Tribunal record. Granting the relief sought would amount to permitting withdrawal of documents unrelated to the requirement placed by the investigating agency.

¶48

It is a settled principle that judicial records cannot be released in a routine manner and only upon demonstration of necessity and relevance. In the absence of any nexus between the documents filed before this Tribunal and the documents demanded by the CBI, the relief sought is legally unsustainable. The pendency of a CBI investigation and the insistence of the investigating agency, by themselves, cannot justify release of judicial records unless it is clearly shown that the very same documents are required and are in the custody of the Tribunal.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the IA is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference.

¶50

Accordingly, IA No.2108 of 2025 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶51

Sd/(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI

¶52

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 9^th day of January, 2026)

¶53

State Bank of India v. Krishnan Ponnambalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Krishnan Ponnambalam

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

M Lakshmi Priya versus Bank of Baroda

Venus Exports versus Bank of Baroda

Poovai Amman Avency and Others versus City Union Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Ms. Vidot Sheila Agnes

D Murugesan versus Indian Overseas Bank

C Jaichand versus State Bank of India