191090003832025_f6ea6cfed760cd723a8a5be235ae5ffc.pdf

1 
 
Reportable / not reportable 
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA 
HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson  
Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 383 of 2025 
(Arising out of I.A. 601/2023& 1210/2024in SA. 131 of 2022– DRT- Cuttack) 
30.06.2025 
                                                                                         
1. Anjali Udyog having registered office at Srivihar Colony, 
PO Tulasipur, P.S. Bidanasi, Cuttack.  
2. Shri Kamalakanta Das, residing at Srivihar Colony, PO 
Tulasipur, P.S. Bidanasi, Cuttack.  
... Appellant
--Vs-- 
1. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK having Regional office at B/2, 2nd 
floor, West Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar – 751007.  
2. Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Cuttack Main 
Branch, Cantonment Road, Cuttack – 753001.  
3. Rama Chandra Jena, Erstwhile Branch Manager, Indian 
Overseas Bank, Hripur Road Branch, PO Buxi Bazar, PS 
Purighhat, Dist Cuttack 753001, at present 45, SBIGH colony, 
Sector – 9 CDA, PO/PS Markat Nagar, Cuttack 753014.  
4. Siddharth Nanda, residing at New Tarol, Ramadevi Nagar, 
PO/PS Jagatpur, Cuttack – 754021.  
5. Mr. Priya Ranjan Pati, residing at Chauliaganj, Niladrivihar, 
Nuabazar, Cuttack, Odisha – 754214.  
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Satrughna Dash, Ld. Adv.  
 
 
 
 
For Respondent: 
 
 
The Appellate Tribunal 
 
 
I.A. 305 of 2025 is filed for condoning the delay in filing hard 
copy of the appeal under Rule 4(2) of Debts Recovery Appellate 
Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules 2020.  I.A. 305 of 2025 is 
allowed. Delay in filing hard copy is condoned.  

2 
 
2. 
I.A. 304 of 2025 is filed u/s 5 Limitation Act for condoning 
30 days delay in preferring the appeal.  Impugned order is passed 
on 05.12.2024 while appeal is preferred on 11.04.2025. Having 
considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the 
appellant, I found the ground is sufficient to condone the delay.  
I.A. 304 of 2025 is allowed.  Delay in preferring the appeal is 
condoned. 
3. 
Heard learned counsel for the appellant at admission stage.  
Respondent is served, but not represented.  
4. 
Instant appeal is preferred against the impugned order 
dated 05.12.2024 passed by the DRT, Cuttack whereby I.A. 1210 
of 2024 and I.A. 601 of 2023 were dismissed by the learned DRT.  
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order appellant preferred the 
appeal.   
5. 
Learned counsel would submit that both the I.A.s were 
disposed of by passing a cyclostyle order without taking into 
consideration the grounds taken in both the I.A.s by the learned 
DRT.  It is further submitted that fraud has been committed by 
the bank officers which was accepted by the bank.  This 
contentionoughtto have been enquired into by the learned DRT, 

3 
 
but learned DRT has failed to exercise its jurisdiction by disposing 
of the I.A.s 
6. 
I have gone through the impugned order whereby I.A. 1210 
of 2024 and I.A. 601 of 2023 are dismissed by the learned DRT.  
7. 
I.A. 1210 of 2024 is filed for cross-examination of six 
witnesses by the appellant.  Perusal of I.A. 1210 of 2024 which 
was filed before the DRT would reveal that no ground has been 
taken by the appellant as to why the witnesses should be 
summoned and be permitted to cross-examine by the appellant.  
Simply a prayer is made that six persons be summoned for cross-
examination.  Learned counsel for the appellant would submit 
that this I.A. was moved on the basis of the grounds taken in the 
securitization application filed u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 
Securitization application is still pending wherein reply is also filed 
by the respondents.  Learned DRT will deal with these issues at 
the time of disposal of the securitization application.  I do not find 
any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the I.A. 1210 of 2024 by 
learned DRT.  
8. 
I.A. 601 of 2023 is filed by the appellant for referring the 
matter for enquiry to the CBI and further seven queries are raised 

4 
 
for referring the matter to the CBI.  However, in this I.A. 

…