191090000862022_5e032b3e499ff3eb2b4673ea6bb7ce6f.pdf

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                        
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
                               Appeal No. 87 of 2023
        (Arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019  in DRT-III, Kolkata)
Order No. 15
10.4.2024 
Multiple Educational & Manpower 
Development Trust & 9 Others    
         …   Appellants
              -Vs-
Kotak 
Mahindra 
Bank 
Limited 
        …  Respondent
Mr. Soham Bandopadhyay with 
Ms. Priyanka Kundu,  
Learned 
Counsel  for Appellants
Mr. 
Sarathi 
Dasgupta 
with 
Mr. Pratik Ghose, Mr. Avishek 
Roy 
Chowdhury, 
Counsel 
for 
Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
                     
Instant appeal has arisen against order dated 15th 
March, 2021, passed by DRT-III, Kolkata, in I.A. 577 of 
2021 arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019 dismissing the I.A. 
wherein prayer for amendment of the written statement was 
sought by the Appellants who are Defendants before the 
Learned DRT.  
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and 
perused the record.
O.A. 189 0f 2019 was filed by the Respondent Bank 
under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks 
And Financial Institutions Act for recovery of an amount of 
Rs.10,40,88,199.00. Pending proceedings, written statement 
was filed by the Appellants on 16.12.2019.  Thereafter an 

2
application seeking permission for amendment was moved 
by the Appellants on the ground that after filing of the 
written statement certain developments have taken place 
regarding certain orders passed by NCLT, NCLAT and High 
Court and Supreme Court which was opposed by the Bank.  
Learned DRT rejected the amendment application on the 
ground that Rule 12 Sub rules (1), (2) and (3) of the DRT 
(Procedure) Rules provide for a time limit for 30 days and 
thereafter 15 days for filing written statement from the date 
of receipt of summons.  
Accordingly, after filing of the 
written statement, amendment application, which was filed 
much after 45 days, could not be entertained.  Accordingly, 
Learned DRT dismissed I.A. 577 of 2021.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants would submit that 
the amendment application was filed with a ground that 
after filing of the written statement certain developments 
took place and certain orders were passed by NCLT, NCLAT 
and High Court and Supreme Court which are necessary to 
be brought on record so that the Appellants would be able to 
lead proper evidence. 
Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent would 
submit that all the proposed amendments are matters of 
record which could have been filed by the Appellants in their 
evidence.  There is no necessity of seeking amendment in 
the written statement. It is further submitted that all these 
orders, etc., have already been brought on record by the 

3
Appellants by way of filing I.A.s hence there is no necessity 
for seeking amendment.  
As far as legal interpretation of Rule 12 of DRT Rules is 
concerned it is not the case that written statement is not 
filed within the stipulated period, but as far as amendment 
to the pleadings is concerned, no doubt specific provisions of 
Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. are not applicable in DRT but basic 
principle of the same would apply before the DRT. Law of 
amendment is well settled in catena of judgments by The 
Hon’ble Apex Court that if by way of an amendment, an 
admission is not being withdrawn or a plea, which is time 
barred, is not being taken by the Appellant such amendment 
would be allowed by the Tribunal and the issue whether it is 
sought after 45 days or not would not come into play.
As far as impugned order is concerned, the proposed 
amendments are developments which took place after filing 
of the written statement.  Copy of the orders have been filed 
by the Appellants along with some I.A.s but an I.A. cannot 
substitute a pleading.  A party cannot be permitted  to lead 
evidence on issue which is not pleaded.  It is not in dispute 
that the developments to

…