AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Respondent no.1 State Bank of India and other banks who are also arrayed as respondents in the present appeal filed O.A. bearing T.A. No.311/2022 titled as State Bank of India & others V Shakti Bhog Food Ltd & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-III, Delhi. The appellant no.2 Sunanda Kumar and appellant no.4 M/s Pearl Agro Food who were defendants 4 and 6 before DRT filed an application bearing No.1050/2024 for deletion of appellant no.4 from the array of the parties and dismissal of the O.A. qua the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) M/s Pearl Agro Food. In the present appeal besides defendant no.4 an 6 of the O.A., K.K. Kumar and Siddharth Kumar who are defendants no.2 and 3 have also joined as appellants no.1 and 3.
It was contended before DRT-III, Delhi that the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) stood released from all liability after the sanction letter dated 31.01.2013 issued by respondent no.1 State Bank of India which was further modified on 14.07.2015. Various other documents stated to have been executed during the entire loan transaction were also referred in support of the I.A. No.1050/2024. It was prayed that the present O.A. be rejected qua appellant no.4 (defendant no.6). DRT vide the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 has dismissed the I.A. No.1050/2024 primarily by observing that the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) despite service on 05.07.2017 and also grant of final opportunity vide order dated 31.01.2018 failed to file written the statement within the statutory limit under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act, 1993 It was also observed that the right of appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) to file the written statement was closed and ex parte order was passed against appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) on 30.05.2018. DRT also categorically observed that the O.A. stood admitted against the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6). DRT also made observation regarding filing of the affidavit by appellant no.2 i.e. defendant no.4 in the O.A. in support of the application. The relevant portion of the order dated 21.08.2025 is reproduced as under:-
5.Having considered the rival submissions and material on record, it is apparent that IA No.1050/2024 has been moved on behalf of Defendant Nos. 4 and 6 at the stage of final arguments, seeking deletion of Defendant No.6 from the array of parties and rejection of the O.A. against him on the ground that no sanction letters, guarantees, or security documents subsequent to 31.01.2013 were ever executed by Defendant no.6. The plea is that impleading Defendant No.6 amounts to an abuse of process in absence of privity of contract. On the contrary, the Applicant Banks have rightly pointed out that Defendant No.6 was duly served on 05.07.2017 but failed to file any written statement within the statutory limit under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act, 1993, and even after grant of final opportunity by order dated 31.01.2018 subject to costs of Rs.25,000/-, neither complied with the condition nor filed the written statement, leading to closure of the right and passing of an ex parte order against Defendant No.6 on 30.05.2018. Thus, the claim in the O.A. stands admitted against Defendant No.6. It is also notable that the present application has been filed only on the affidavit of Defendant No.4 as partner and defendant no.6 is a firm arrayed co-defendant, and not support by Defendant No.6 himself, who has chosen to remain ex parte throughout. The record further reveals that Defendant No.1 has admitted its liabilities in its audited balance sheets dated 28.08.2013, 03.09.2014 and 12.10.2015, which affirms the subsisting liability towards the Applicant Banks. In these circumstances, the belated attempt to contest impleadment of Defendant No.6 at this advanced stage of the proceedings is neither bona fide nor sustainable in law, as procedural lapses, non-compliance of statutory requirement, and admitted defaults cannot be permitted to be undone by belated applications styled under the garb of deletion of parties.
Sh. Sanjeev Bhandari, Advocate for the appellants argued that if the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) could not file the written statement it does not mean that he can be ordered to be proceeded ex parte. It is further argued that the impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises and without looking into the pleadings of the parties and the documents which squarely reflects that appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) was not liable to be impleaded in the present O.A. as he was not having any liability towards the respondent no.1 State Bank of India and other banks. It is further argued that the observation made in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 particularly in para 5 will cause serious prejudice to the pleas and contentions of the appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) at the time of final disposal of the present O.A. It is argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The counsel for the respondent no.1 stated that initially appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) appeared before the DRT but subsequently failed to appear after closing the right to file the written statement. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has defended the impugned order, particularly para 5 thereof.
It appears that DRT-III, Delhi in the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 dismissed the I.A. No.1050/2024 primarily on the premises that appellant no.4 (defendant no.6) has admitted the O.A. as he was proceeded ex parte and did not file the written statement. In the impugned order it is also appearing that DRT has not considered other arguments of the appellant particularly reference to the contents of the pleadings as well as documents stated to have been relied upon by the appellants. The present O.A. which is stated to be originally filed in the year 2017 is listed for final arguments on 10.06.2026. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the present appeal is disposed of with direction to the DRT-III, Delhi that at the time of final disposal of the O.A. the pleas and contentions as mentioned in I.A. No.1050/2024 shall also be considered by the DRT besides other arguments. The contesting parties shall be at liberty to raise all the pleas and contentions before the DRT at the time of final disposal of the O.A. bearing T.A. No.311/2022.