AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.269/2023 (Application for condonation of delay)
The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 143 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 143 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.
Appeal No.108/2023
The appellant filed O.A. bearing No.1045/2018 titled as Canara Bank V. M/s Sunshine Industries and others which was ordered to be dismissed vide judgement dated 31.10.2022 passed by DRT-Jaipur. DRT-Jaipur observed that the documents which have been filed were not assigned by the respondents and the appellant was not having any documents with regard to KYC as well as original application form on the basis of which the credit facility was sanctioned by Chief Manager of the appellant. DRT-Jaipur, also observed that the Demand Promissory Note, agreement letter and hypothecation deed stated to have been executed by the respondents, were not filed on record as such the claim of the appellant was placed on almost no documents. The relevant portion of the impugned judgement dated 31.10.2022 is reproduced as under:
18.So, the documents as stated above are filed along with this OA and there is no document which is signed by any of the defendants and the application filed by the defendant is not available with the bank as per letter given by the bank officers. The account opening form and KYC documents were given by one of the bank officials to representative of accused no.6 of the FIR.
19.This fact again 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 KYC as well as original applications form on the basis of which credit facility was sanctioned by Mr. Deshraj Meena, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.
20.No Demand Promissory Note, no agreement letter, no hypothecation deed executed by the defendant is filed on record and in fact as stated earlier no document is on record which can prove that the defendants have executed any of the single document.
29.It is made clear here that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is 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 Judgement shall have no effect on the proceedings of any Criminal Trial, pending before any Court against the FIR or charge sheeted accused persons.
30.Accordingly, this Original Application stands disposed of as dismissed.
31.A copy of the Judgement be given or sent by registered post to each of the parties free.
Sh. P.B.A. Srinivasan, Advocate for the appellant stated that there was a debt within the mandate of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and the appellant has placed on record Statement of Accounts which is sufficient to prove the debt against the respondents. He argued that the impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded back to DRT-Jaipur for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Sh. Anand Aggarwal appearing on behalf of respondents stated that the respondents have never approached the bank for loan facility and no KYC was placed on record by the appellant. The loan account was appearing to be fake loan account which was not supported by any loan application. Sh. Anand Aggarwal defended the impugned judgement.
The perusal of impugned judgement dated 31.10.2022 reflects that DRT-Jaipur has considered that documents which could have substantiate the claim of the appellant regarding the advancement of the loan to the respondents and the presence of debt against the respondents could be proved.
DRT-Jaipur after considering all the relevant facts, has observed that the debt could not be proved against the respondents. The impugned judgement dated 31.10.2022 passed by DRT-Jaipur is a reasoned order and has been passed after considering the relevant facts. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement which requires any interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.