Allowed

M/S. Shivani Motors and 2 Ors. v. the Punjab National Bank and Anr. (G)

Gauhati HC4 Oct 2018CRP(I/O)/335/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, allowed an extension of time for a petitioner to file a written statement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, considering the proprietor's traumatic injury an exceptional circumstance, but declined to establish this as a precedent for routine extensions.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to file written statement and evidence affidavit allowed on 08.10.2018 before the DRT; order not to be cited as precedent.

M/S. Shivani Motors and 2 Ors. Vs the Punjab National… — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010223942018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP(I/O) 335/2018

¶5

1:M/S. SHIVANI MOTORS AND 2 ORS.

¶6

A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, BEING REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MOHANRAM CHOUDHURY, SON OF LATE AMARA RAM CHOUDHURY, MELENG (SOTAI), KOPORADHORA, NEAR JIST, NH- 37, JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785010.

¶7

2: MOHANRAM CHOUDHURY SON OF LATE AMARA RAM CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF SEUNI ALI NEAR AKSHAY AUTOMOBILES A.T. ROAD JORHAT ASSAM. PIN- 785107.

¶8

3: SURESH KUMAR RAMAWAT SON OF MOHANIAL RAMAWAT RESIDENT OF MOHAN ENTERPRISE A.T. ROAD JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. (G)

¶11

A BODY INCORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT 1970, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI- 110607, CARRYING ON BANKING BUSINESS AT DIFFERENT PLACES ALL OVER INDIA AND HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE AT JORHAT VIZ. JORHAT BRANCH, K.B. ROAD, JORHAT, ASSAM. PIN- 785001.

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

2:THE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (DBT) GUWAHATI-07 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 04-10-2018

¶19

Heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who has submitted that he has been instructed to appear in this application as he is the counsel engaged by the respondent No.1 Bank before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati.

¶20

By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati by which the petition for adjournment for filing written statement cum evidence in DRT Case, being OA No.238/18 was rejected and the said Original Application was fixed for argument on 08.10.2018.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of petitioner No.1 firm, and had availed loan from the respondent No.1, Bank. The petitioner No.3 stood as a guarantor.

¶22

It is submitted that due to the trauma injuries suffered by the petitioner No.2, he had to be shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute at Gurgaon for undergoing bone grafting operation and as per the medical certificate as his talus fracture had united but the tibia fracture was still not united, as such, he was advised rest for 8 (eight) weeks from 28.07.2018 for the bone to unite and

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

for the said reason, the adjournment was sought for, expressing inability of the petitioner to file the written statement.

¶25

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed this application by submitting that under the provisions of Debts Recovery and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, pursuant to the amendment made under the provision of section 19(5)(i) thereof, the written statement is required to be filed within a period of 30 days including the documents on which the defendant before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal wants to rely and along with the written statements, evidence on affidavit is also required to be filed.

¶26

It is further submitted that under the proviso to clause-(i) of sub section 5 of the section 19 of the said Act, the Tribunal in exceptional cases has the power to extend the said period for a further period not exceeding 15 days and thereafter the Tribunal has no power to extend the period prescribed for filing the written statement.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd Versus The Official Liquidator Of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another AIR 2017 SC 5013, has held that although some power of the Civil Court is vested on the Debts Recovery Tribunal, but it does not give the status of Court and therefore, the Tribunal is not bound by the procedures as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code and can regulate its own procedure.

¶28

In the present case, having observed that the medical documents showed that the respondent had suffered a traumatic injury and has undergone treatment in a hospital outside the State. Hence, this Court finds that this is an exceptional circumstance where this Court exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can exercise its discretion and extend the time for filing the written statement by the petitioners on next date fixed by the learned Tribunal i.e. on 08.10.2018.

¶29

As this is a case of exceptional circumstances, this order is not

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

intended to be cited as a precedent for future, as because extension of time to file written statement before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot be allowed in a routine manner.

¶32

Accordingly, it is provided that if the petitioner files their written statement along with their evidence on affidavit on 08.10.2018 i.e. the next date fixed before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in connection with OA No.238 of 2018, the said learned Tribunal shall accept the same on record and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

¶33

It is further provided that if the written statement and the evidence cannot be filed on the said date the opportunity granted by this Court shall stand lapsed.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

M/S. Shivani Motors and 2 Ors. v. the Punjab National Bank and Anr. (G)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shivani Motors and 2 Ors. v. the Punjab National Bank and Anr. (G)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gajanan Structures and Anr. Vs Biswajit Deb and 8 Ors.

Abul Kalam Choudhury Vs Alah Uddin Laskar

Smti Giribala Das and 3 Ors, Vs Md. Imam Haque and 9 Ors.

MD Hasmat Ali @ Hasu Vs on the Death of Thuleswar Das His Legal Heirs Smti Monu Das and 4 Ors.

Indrajit Saikia Vs Juli Rajbangshi

Rama Mukherjee Vs Mitra Mukherjee @ Ratna Mukherjee