HC allows ICICI to recover ₹4k cr from Subhiksha
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:07.02.2019
The Madras high court has upheld the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) permitting ICICI Bank Limited to recover defaulted loan dues of ₹4,066.93 crore from the nowdefunct retail chain — Subhiksha Trading Services Limited.
The first bench of Chief Justice V K Tahilramani and Justice M Duraiswamy passed the order while dismissing an appeal moved by Subhiksha managing director R Subramanian.
Subramanian argued the case as party-in-person after getting special permission from the court as he is currently lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in connection with a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. During every hearing, Subramanian was produced by the prison authorities before the court enabling him to argue the case.
The issue pertains to an application moved by ICICI to recover defaulted loan dues from Subhiksha before the debts recovery tribunal (DRT). As the bank failed to produce certificate along with the computer generated bank statement, the DRT dismissed its plea.
ICICI moved the DRAT challenging the dismissal. On February 19, 2018 the appellate tribunal passed an order setting aside the dismissal and allowed the bank to proceed with recovering the dues.
Aggrieved, Subramanian moved the present appeal before the high court. He contended that the statement of accounts, produced by the bank without the certificate could not be taken on record as valid evidence. Therefore, the DRAT should not have interfered with the order. He further submitted that in the absence of the statement of accounts, the claim made by the bank is liable to be rejected.
Rejecting the arguments, the bench said: “In the case on hand, the petitioner has not raised any objection at the time of marking the document. Even, the entries made in the statement of accounts were also not disputed by the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.... Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise objections with regard to marking of the document at a later stage.”
It is needless to say that the bank is dealing with the public money and such a huge amount cannot be allowed to go unrecovered from the defaulting borrowers, the court added and dismissed the plea.
‘PUBLIC MONEY CAN’T GO UNRECOVERED’
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:07.02.2019
The Madras high court has upheld the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) permitting ICICI Bank Limited to recover defaulted loan dues of ₹4,066.93 crore from the nowdefunct retail chain — Subhiksha Trading Services Limited.
The first bench of Chief Justice V K Tahilramani and Justice M Duraiswamy passed the order while dismissing an appeal moved by Subhiksha managing director R Subramanian.
Subramanian argued the case as party-in-person after getting special permission from the court as he is currently lodged in Puzhal Central Prison in connection with a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. During every hearing, Subramanian was produced by the prison authorities before the court enabling him to argue the case.
The issue pertains to an application moved by ICICI to recover defaulted loan dues from Subhiksha before the debts recovery tribunal (DRT). As the bank failed to produce certificate along with the computer generated bank statement, the DRT dismissed its plea.
ICICI moved the DRAT challenging the dismissal. On February 19, 2018 the appellate tribunal passed an order setting aside the dismissal and allowed the bank to proceed with recovering the dues.
Aggrieved, Subramanian moved the present appeal before the high court. He contended that the statement of accounts, produced by the bank without the certificate could not be taken on record as valid evidence. Therefore, the DRAT should not have interfered with the order. He further submitted that in the absence of the statement of accounts, the claim made by the bank is liable to be rejected.
Rejecting the arguments, the bench said: “In the case on hand, the petitioner has not raised any objection at the time of marking the document. Even, the entries made in the statement of accounts were also not disputed by the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.... Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise objections with regard to marking of the document at a later stage.”
It is needless to say that the bank is dealing with the public money and such a huge amount cannot be allowed to go unrecovered from the defaulting borrowers, the court added and dismissed the plea.
‘PUBLIC MONEY CAN’T GO UNRECOVERED’
No comments:
Post a Comment