AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 23/2023 (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.11/2023
It is reflecting that the appellant filed O.A. bearing No.939/2028 titled as Canara bank v. Narendra Mishra & others which was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 27.07.2022. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2023 is reproduced as under:
18.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 KYC as well as original application form on the basis of which credit facility was sanctioned by Mr. Deshraj Meena, General Manager of the applicant bank.
19.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.
20.Annexure A/1 is a certificate dated 30.05.2017 to whomsoever it may concern, Sh. Gurdev Singh., Assistant General Manager of the applicant bank, authorized to represent the bank for filing of suits/applications/Vakalatnama/ giving evidence and any other work related to Court matters on behalf of Syndicate Bank.
21.If such type of certificate is filed by the applicant bank showing the authorization to file Original Application of such high amount of Rs.3.58 Crore. The same is not liable to be accepted as it is not a proper authorization, which can authorize an officer of the Bank to file this OA. Based on above said discussion, it is clear that the applicant bank failed to file any proof of which can show that the defendant no.1 & 2 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.
22.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.
23.Fake loans were sanctioned, amount were disbursed, the officers of the applicant bank held to private accused person and they remove the original applications form as well as KYC documents and now the applicant have nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that any of the document was signed by the defendants and even the copy of title documents and copy of confirmation.
24.It is important to mention here that FIR was lodged on 07.03.2016 but this original application was filed on 18.08.2018 which remain defective for two to three them then the applicant bank took one year time in the service of the summons and non-service of the summons is only because the defendant might be not exists in person. 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, definitely whereabouts of the defendants could have been brought before this Tribunal if they all are exists.
25.Based on above said discussions, this O.A. is nothing but a bundle of waste papers. The defendants 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.
26.Annexue-2 sanction letter is issued by Sh. Deshraj Meena, officer of the applicant bank but this sanction letter no bears the signature of borrowers as well as guarantors as already pointed out.
27.Accordingly, this Original Application Stands disposed of as dismissed.
It is reflected that the appellant could not file any documents to prove that the respondents had obtained the credit facility except the sanction letter dated 18.02.2016. The DRT-Jaipur also observed that the appellant failed to file any proof which can show that the respondents executed any documents and obtained the credit facility. 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.