Bank of India vs State Bank of India & Ors

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

The Appellant impugns the order dated 25/08/2008 in Exhibit 65 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 826 of 2001 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) dismissing the application filed as Exhibit 65 for amendment of the written statement filed by the Appellant as defendant No. 4 in the O.A. The Ld. Presiding Officer dismissed the application mainly on the ground of delay in filing this application for amendment of the written statement.

The aforesaid O.A. was filed by the 1st Respondent State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary of the Appellant which later merged with the Appellant bank and has been substituted as the 1st Respondent. The above and in the application is that there was a change in the Vakalatnama filed by the Appellant and on engaging the present Advocate, he found that the 3rd and vital pleas remain to be taken and hence, filed the application for an amendment to incorporate those pleas.

It is observed by the Ld. Presiding Officer that the Appellant for the defendant had filed its written statement on 21/01/2003. The Applicant bank had filed the CAOD on 04/05/2005. There was a change in Vakalatnama for the Appellant on 07/04/2006. There was an application filed by the Appellant on 27/07/2006 for referring the matter to an arbitrator and to stay the hearing of the O.A. The said application was rejected. The Ld. Presiding Officer observed that the new Counsel entered an appearance on 07/04/2006 and had no reason to delay in filing the application for amendment of the written statement. It is observed that the application for amendment was filed almost 2 years after the appearance of the new Counsel. The reasons for the delay in seeking amendment of the written statement which was filed 5 years ago is not satisfactorily explained and hence, the application was dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on going through the schedule of the amendment sought to be incorporated in the original written statement, it is seen that the original defence taken up in the written statement is not sought to be altered by way of amendment. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the Applicant in the O.A. has now merged with the 4th defendant therein and therefore the amendment is not of any consequence to affect the defence taken by the Appellant. The finding of the Ld. Presiding Officer attributing delay as the only reason for the dismissal of the application cannot be justified.

Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the application filed as Ext. 65 for amendment of the written statement filed by the Appellant in O.A. 826 of 2001, is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks of receipt of this order by the D.R.T. The disposal of the O.A. shall be expedited.