AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
Instant appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the learned DRT-3 Kolkata in T.A. 17 of 2014 whereby learned DRT considered the I.A. 1313 of 2026 filed by the bank for attachment before judgment. I.A. 1336 of 2026 was filed by the appellant challenging maintainability of the application for attachment before judgment filed by the bank. Learned DRT after hearing learned counsel for the parties held that prayer for direct attachment can only be done as per prescribed procedure. Learned DRT in view of the provision of Section 19(13) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 directed to show cause or to furnish security in the light of the statutory provision of Section 19(13) of the Act and place the same on the next date fixed.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the application filed by the bank itself was not maintainable, which was challenged in I.A. 1336 of 2026. It is further submitted that learned DRT has not considered the relevant provision which are akin to Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. Learned counsel relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders reported in (2008) 2 SCC 302, submitted that the order for attachment before judgment cannot be passed without considering the issue of maintainability.
Having gone through the impugned order and the provision of the Section 19(13) of the Act it is apparent that learned DRT has not recorded any finding for furnishing security or attachment rather a direction was issued to show cause or in default furnish security raised by the bank. Regarding maintainability, the issue has been kept open by the learned DRT for the next date of hearing fixed on 10.07.2026.
The judgment relied upon by the appellant in Raman Tech (supra) will not apply at this stage. Hon'ble Apex Court in that case directed to issue show cause to the defendants and submit security for the suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. But, in the present case only direction was issued to show cause by the learned DRT.
Provision of Section 19(13) of the Act would show that learned DRT has jurisdiction to issue show cause as to why security should not be furnished by the opposite party. Since the issue of maintainability is yet to be decided by the learned DRT, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine.
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed. All the points of maintainability raised in this appeal will be considered by the learned DRT while deciding the matter. I.A. 387 and 388 of 2026 filed by the appellant stand disposed of. Costs easy.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's website.