Skip to content


Kmmi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State Bank of India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition Nos. 35865 & 35938 of 2015 (GM-DRT)
Judge
AppellantKmmi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and Another
RespondentState Bank of India
Excerpt:
.....in the pending proceedings, the petitioners herein are the defendants. despite grant of time, the written statement had not been filed in the said proceedings. the respondent - bank had accordingly filed the affidavit of a.w. 1 and the documents produced in that regard were also marked as c.a. 1 to c.a. 59. time as sought by the petitioners herein who are the defendants was rejected by the drt and on invoking order 7, rule 10 of the cpc has allowed the application and directed issue of recovery certificate. it is in that view, the petitioners are before this court. 3. even when there was default on the part of the defendants and if the drt was proceeding to allow the recovery proceedings, it was required to take note of the pleadings and the evidence that has been put forth by the.....
Judgment:

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by the DRT in O.A. No. 515/2014 as at Annexure 'A' to the petition.

2. The respondent - Bank has filed the recovery petition under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. In the pending proceedings, the petitioners herein are the defendants. Despite grant of time, the written statement had not been filed in the said proceedings. The respondent - Bank had accordingly filed the affidavit of A.W. 1 and the documents produced in that regard were also marked as C.A. 1 to C.A. 59. Time as sought by the petitioners herein who are the defendants was rejected by the DRT and on invoking Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC has allowed the application and directed issue of Recovery Certificate. It is in that view, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Even when there was default on the part of the defendants and if the DRT was proceeding to allow the Recovery proceedings, it was required to take note of the pleadings and the evidence that has been put forth by the respondent - Bank, analyse the same and thereafter should have proceeded to pass the final orders if the same indicated that the issue of Recovery Certificate is justified and it is not automatic on default. On the other hand, the order impugned does not indicate such exercise by the DRT. Therefore, on the short ground, the order impugned dated 6.7.2015 is set-aside.

4. The proceedings in O.A. No. 515/2014 is restored to the file of the DRT.

5. The parties shall now appear before the DRT without issue of fresh notice, on 7.11.2016 at 11.00 a.m.

6. The DRT shall thereupon take on record the case and grant two weeks time to the petitioners herein who are the defendants to file their written statement.

7. The DRT shall thereafter proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.

8. Needless to mention that if the written statement is not filed by the petitioners herein within the time granted, the opportunity granted will be forfeited and thereafter the DRT may proceed in accordance with law.

9. In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.

Petition disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //