191090004072020_6b30acacff6b55daf8732c93a7c2a955.pdf

Appeal No. 46 of 2020-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
        Appeal No. 46 of 2020
     (Arising out of O.A. 540 of 2018 in T.A. 09 of 2002 in DRT-1, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, a compsany registered under the 
Companies Act, 1956 acting through one of its Authorised 
Representatives, having its registered office at 27B BKC, C 27, G 
Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 .
             … Appellant
                                     -Versus-
1.  The 
Alumunium 
Manufacturing 
Company 
Limited 
( 
in
Liquidation) being represented by the of Official Liquidator. Having 
office at 9, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata – 700 001;
2. Chandrakant Pasari;
3. Sushila Devi Pasari;
4. Ankarmal Pasari;
5. Sajan Kumar Pasari;
6. Smt. Gayatri Devi Pasari;
7. Bhagirath Pasari;
All Nos. 2 to 7 are residing at 4, Raney Park, Kolkata – 700 019 .
                
   …  Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants
…   
Mr.     Pratik Ghosh
Mr. Avishek Roy Chowdhury
Counsel for Respondent Bank  
 
…   
Mr. Soumabho Ghosh
Ms. Ashika Daga
Ms. Arti Bhattacharya
Mr. Samriddha Sen
JUDGMENT                         
:  
19th July, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
Instant  Appeal  has  been preferred against an order dated 2nd 
December, 2019 passed by Learned DRT-1, Kolkata in case 
No. O.A. 540 of 2018 arising out of T.A. 09 of 2002 (UCO Bank -vs- 
The Alumunium Manufacturing Company Limited & Others) whereby
the following order was passed:

2
      
Appeal No. 46 of 2020-DRAT-Kolkata
Mr. Avishek Roy Chowdhury, Ld Counsel appears for Applicant 
Bank. 
Shri Ajay Chaubey Ld. Counsel appears for the Defendant 
No.2(a)and 4(b).
“The Application has been dismissed on 17.06.2013.
As far as we are concerned there is no petition pending with us, 
so as such matter is dismissed.“ 
Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the appeal.
2.
As would appear from the records that an O.A. was filed by the 
Appellant 
Bank 
against 
the 
Respondents 
for 
recovery 
of 
Rs.1,29,00,195.67 before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta being 
Suit No. 996 of 1980 under the Original Jurisdiction which was in due 
course transferred to DRT-1, Kolkata and re-numbered as T.A. 09 of 
2002.  
3.
UCO Bank  
assigned their debts/accounts in favour of the 
Appellant, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,  on 31st March, 2006  by way 
of a Deed of Assignment. Thereafter, an application for substitution 
was filed on 15th September, 2006 by the Appellant. Pending 
adjudication of the substitution application, the transferred application,
T.A. 09 of 2002, was dismissed on 17th June, 2013 in default of the 
Bank.  An application for restoration for the same was filed by the 
Bank wherein reply was filed by the Respondents on 3rd March, 2014; 
reply of the same was also filed by the Bank on 25th January, 2016. 
Learned DRT dismissed the restoration application on 2nd December, 
2019 holding that the application (T.A. 09 of 2002) has been dismissed 
on 17th June, 2013.  Further it is observed that since there is no 
petition pending before the Learned DRT, the matter is dismissed. 
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order appeal is preferred.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the record.  
4.
 Present appeal was filed on 9th November, 2020 with an 
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application under 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed on 14th December, 2020.

3
      
Appeal No. 46 of 2020-DRAT-Kolkata
5.
Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the impugned order, 
which is passed against the material available on record, itself is
defective and a cryptic order. It is submitted that when the application 
was dismissed on 17th June, 2013 an application for restoration of the 
O.A. was filed wherein opposition and reply to the opposition were 
filed. But it appears that the Learned DRT did not consider the 
restoratio

…