Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DRAT CK 1841

Canara Bank vs M/s Shrinath Exim Traders & Ors.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 14 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Chairperson
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No.258/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 357 words

I.A. No.687/2023 (application for condonation of delay filed by appellant)

1.

There is a delay of 128 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as mentioned in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 128 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

Appeal No.258/2023

2.

Sh. Swetab Kumar Shastri, Advocate for the respondents stated that he has already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents.

3.

The appellant filed O.A. bearing no.161/2018 titled as Canara Bank V. M/s.Shrinath Exim Traders & others which was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 02.03.2023 by DRT, Jaipur after observing that "debt" was not found proved and the bank officials along with unknown borrowers were part of criminal conspiracy.

4.

Sh. Hitesh Sachar, Advocate for the appellant stated that the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 was not passed on merit on the basis of documents submitted by the appellant during the course of trial of O.A. no.161/2018. It is further argued that in para 9 of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 the Tribunal without any definite finding has observed that the defendants might be non-existent and as such are not liable for the repayment of the loan amount.

5.

Sh. Swetab Kumar Shastri, Advocate for the respondents defended the impugned order and argued that the appellant has failed to prove the debt in accordance with law.

6.

The perusal of the impugned order reflects that DRT, Jaipur vide the impugned judgment dated 02.03.2023 came to the conclusion that no “debt” was proved but there is no discussion regarding admissibility of documents filed by the appellant bank. DRT also observed that bank officials along with unknown borrowers were part of criminal conspiracy besides referring other allegations but these observations should not have any effect on the final adjudication of the O.A. bearing no.161/2018. After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 is set aside with a direction to DRT, Jaipur to pass a reasoned order on the basis of available record/documents on record of O.A. bearing no.161/2018.

7.

The parties are directed to appear before DRT, Jaipur on 11.08.2026.