AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 215/2024 (Application for condonation of delay)
The present application is filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. It is stated that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate in filing the present appeal.
After considering all facts, the delay in filing the present appeal stands condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
Appeal No. 73/2024
The respondent is stated to be served by way of publication. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. Hence, respondent is proceeded ex-parte.
It is reflecting that the appellant filed O.A. bearing No. 513/2017 titled as Canara bank v. Dharmendra Mathe which was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 is reproduced as under:
12.This fact, again is sufficient to prove that as of now or even on the date of filing of this O.A. the applicant bank was not having any document with regard to KY as well as original application form on the basis of which credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant bank.
13.It is clear that the applicant bank failed to file any proof which can show that the defendant has executed any of the documents and they obtained a credit facility. For loss of any of the documents like account opening form as well as KYC document, the officers of the applicant bank themselves are responsible and the defendants cannot be held responsible for that.
14.It is important to mention here that it is a peculiar case where the officer of the applicant bank from the rank of General Manager to Assistant General Manager are involved in the act of criminal conspiracy cheating forgery of misuse of their position and they have directly caused loss to the bank where they were working they and they were custodian of the public money.
15.Fake loans were sanctioned, amount were disbursed by the officers of the applicant bank, and they removed the original application form as well as KYC documents and now the applicant have nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the Defendant is a existent person because the Bank itself failed to get the notices served upon the Defendants.
16.It is important to mention here that FIR was lodged on 07.03.2016 but this original application was filed on 30.01.2017 which remain defective for eleven months time then the applicant bank took five months time in the service of the summons. The applicant bank also failed to pray for interim relief as early as possible after filing of this O.A. and any order could have been passed, if definitely whereabouts of the defendants could have been brought before this Tribunal if they all are exists.
16.In para 5.14 of the OA, it is admitted by the Bank that "during internal investigation LIC Policies issued by LIC of India, Udaipur were found fake policies and no such policy was ever issued by LIC.
18.Based on above said discussions, this O.A. is nothing but a bundle of waste papers. The defendants all non traceable cannot be held responsible for repayment of amount because even as on date, their identity is not clear, KYC documents are not on record and any documents executed by them with regard to so called credit facility is not on record.
19.It is made clear here that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it limited to the extent of decision of "Debt" and its recovery. So, as "Debt" is not found proved and Bank Officials along with unknown borrowers are part of criminal conspiracy and other allegations, as alleged in FIR. Accordingly, this Judgment shall have no effect on the proceedings of any Criminal Trial, pending before any Court against the FIR or charge sheeted accused persons.
20.Accordingly, this Original Application Stands disposed of as dismissed.
It is reflects that the appellant could not filed any documents to reflect that the respondent has obtained the credit facility except the sanction letter dated 18.02.2016. The DRT-Jaipur also observed that the appellant could not prove that there was debt against the respondent which was legally recoverable. The DRT-Jaipur in the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 has considered all the relevant issues and logically came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the existence of any debt against the respondent.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 26.06.2023 which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.