RA (SA) 37/2020

1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

Dated the 27^th of December, 2022

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

RA (SA) 37/2020

Between

K. Mohan,

S/o S. Krishnan Kutty,

No.10, Shanthi Nagar Main Street,

S.M. Nagar Post, Avadi,

Chennai – 600 064.

……Appellant

And

1.

The Authorised Officer,

Indian Bank, Pattabiram Branch,

No.89, M. T. H. Road, Pattabiram,

Chennai – 600 072.

2.

K. Karthikeyan,

S/o N. Kamalasekaran,

No.92, Sharma Compound,

South Bazaar, Pattabiram,

Chennai – 600 072.

…..Respondents

RA (SA) 37/2020

2

ORDER

1. This Appeal is against Order dated 01.09.2017 in SA

54/2014 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai.

2. Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

Appellant herein filed SA 54/2014 challenging Sale

dated 10.02.2012, and said Securitisation Application is

resisted by 1^st Respondent Bank on various grounds

including ground of limitation. First Respondent Bank filed

IA 542/2014 requesting Tribunal below, to decide the issue

of limitation first, and such request is accepted, and IA is

taken up. Tribunal below decided IA 542/2014 on merits,

and allowed it holding that SA is barred by limitation.

Consequent to allowing IA 542/2014, SA 54/2014 is

dismissed. Now, against the dismissal of SA, present Appeal

is preferred.

RA (SA) 37/2020

3

3. Heard both Advocate for Appellant and first Respondent

Bank. Both Advocates filed Written Submissions and the

same are reiterated at the time of oral submissions.

4. Before considering the submissions of both parties, it

may be necessary to extract the impugned Order, which is

only a four paragraphs Order, to decide how far the points

urged on behalf of parties both in Written Arguments and

during oral submissions, are relevant:-

2.0 When the SA was taken up for hearing the 1^st

RA (SA) 37/2020

4

parties concerned.”

5. From a reading of above Order, it is clear that above

Order is only a consequential Order. Main Order passed in

IA 542/2014, where objection of 1^st Respondent Bank is

upheld. Now, entire grounds of Appeal and Written

Submissions referred to merits and demerits of both sides

and went on as if Securitisation Application is disposed of on

merits. When a specific finding is given in IA 542/2014 that

claim of Appellant under SA 54/2014 is barred by time,

without questioning that finding, Appellant cannot be allowed

to raise contentions in respect of merits and demerits. It is

not known whether any Appeal is preferred against Orders in

IA 542/2014, which is also passed on 01.09.2017. Here, the

RA (SA) 37/2020

5

Appellant, leaving main Order unchallenged, filed an Appeal

against a consequential Order for the reasons best known to

him. When findings with regard to limitation remained

unchallenged, any length of argument of Counsel for

Appellant, is of no use.

6. In view of above observations, I am of the considered

view that, all the contentions raised in the Appeal, and

during the course of arguments, are no way relevant for a

consequential Order. For these reasons, I am of the view that

Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, Appeal RA (SA) 37/2020 is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any,

stand closed.

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open court, this 27^th of December, 2022]

Sd/-

[Justice S. Ravi Kumar]

CHAIRPERSON