State Bank of India v. Shrikrishna Agro Farm & Ors.

State Bank of India

…Appellant

…Respondent

Case No: Misc. Appeal No. 121/2022

Date of Judgement: 26/05/2023

Judges:

Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Appellant: Mr Atul Pande, Advocate.

For Respondent: M.D. Samuel, Advocate.

Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

Arguments by the Respondents:

Arguments by the Appellant Bank:

The Appellant Counsel contended that the amendment to the pleadings before the D.R.T. should be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and guided by the principles of natural justice. Although the Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the CPC, there is no specific procedure prescribed for the D.R.T. to carry out amendment of the pleadings. Therefore, the principles of amendment of pleadings prescribed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC would apply. The proviso to Rule 17 makes it clear that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial commences unless the court concludes that, despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The suit was filed in 2010 before the Civil Court and was transferred to the D.R.T. in 2011. The application for amendment was filed only in 2017. Any additional claim by way of amendment cannot be introduced if the said claim is barred by limitation. In the present case, the Respondents have enhanced the claim after a period of seven years, and therefore, it cannot be allowed.

Sections and Laws Referred:

Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Order 8 Rule 6-A (1) of the CPC.

Section 22 of the RDB Act.

Cases Cited:

HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Ashapurna Minechem Ltd II (2017) BC 515 (DB) (Bom.)

Final Order:

The D.R.A.T. allowed the appeal filed by the State Bank of India and dismissed I.A. No. 79/2017 filed in O.A. No. 81/2010 before the D.R.T. The D.R.T. was directed to endeavor to dispose of the O.A. expeditiously.