'1 . N//s Sri Abhishek Steels and Power Limited v. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating the Appeal No.43 of 2025 dt.O4.08.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata as illegal, arbitrary, non-reasoned, consequently set aside the order in Appeal No.43 of 2025 dl. 04.08.2025. IAN O: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.A No. 1792 of 2017 on the file of DRT-ll Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.R.AVULA, REP. FOR M/s' PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI S.RAVI, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.27 277 0F 2025 Mr. V.R. petitioners Avula, learned counsel representing M/s. Pillix Law Firm for the Mr. S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. p. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) I . The Writ Petition arises out of an order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata ('DRAT), on

04.O8.2025, in Miscellaneous Appeal No.43 of 2025 filed by the petitioners, who were the appellants before the DRAT.

2. The Appeal was fiied by the petitioners lrom an order dated 03.04.2025, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-ll, Hyderabad ('DRT-II) in I.A.No.359 of 2025 in O.A.No.1792 of 2017. The I.A. before the DRT II was filed by the writ petitioners. The O.A.No. 1792 of 2Ol7 was filed by the respondent No.4/Canara Balk against the petitioners/borrowers. Pending O.A., ARCIL was assigned the debt from the respondent No.4/Canara Bank based on which ARCIL filed a substitution application. Thereafter, the O.A. was 2 transferred from DRT-I, Hyderabad to DRT-II, Hyderabad and was renumbered as O.A.No.1792 of 2017.

3. The factual background to the Writ Petition is stated in the follolr'in g paragraphs

4. The respondent No.4/Canara Bank filed the O.A.No.125 of 2OI4 before the DRT-I, Hyderabad (renumbered S O.A.No. i792 of 2ol7l in relation to an amount of Rs.55,25,512, a89.42 ps. and also for the recoverv of a sum of Rs.6,98,84,43 1.17 ps. whereby an ex patle de,ci-ee was passed The writ petitioners (defendants in O.A.No.1792 of 2Ol7l filed I.A.No.359 of 2025, seeking a direction on the Bank to produce a complete and accurate statement of accou nts reflecting the contractual rate of interest without compounding. Bv the order dated 03.04.2025, the DRT dismissed the application on the ground that the defendants' I.A. was not maintarnable and w,as only filed trl protract the litigation. The order also states that ARCIL had already filed the statement of accounts which had been marked as trxs.A79 and A8O on 25.04.2018, and that the defendalts /writ petitioners chose not to lead evidence. Til i i I III I I I I I I I 3

5. The petitioners challenged the order dated 03 .O4 .2025 before the DRAT. The DRAT referred to Central Bank of India u. Rauindra and Ors.r and held that although the burden initially Iies upon the secured creditor to place an interest calculation, the burden shifts on the opposite party to disprove the case of the secured creditor. The DRAT also held that the secured creditor had already complied with the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India (supra) by bringing the statement of accounts on record as per statutory provisions The DRAT accordingly proceeded to dismiss the Miscellaneous Appeal and directed the DRT to expedite the matter, since the O.A. had been pending since 2014.

6. The Writ Petition has been filed from the order passed the DRAT on O4.O8.2O25 by which the petitioners/defendants' Misceilaneous Appeal challenging the order of the DRT dated 03.04.2025 was dismissed

7. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners ald learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3/ARCIL. 'zooz (t) scc roz 4

8. ln Central Bank of India (supra), the Supreme Court directed Banks/secured creditors to file a statement of account in the Court showing details and giving pa:-ticulars of debit entries relating to the interest, including the period for which the interest. has been charged. It was further held that if the borrou.er rzrises a dispute with regard to the permissibility of debits, the onus would shift on the borrower to show u,hy the amount of clebit balance cannot be accepted and adjudged. The Supreme Court was of the view that the aforesaid practice u,ould expedite the disposal of suits filed by banking institution s under The Recovery of Debts ald Bankruptcy Act,

9. Ac1mitted11,, the respondent No.3/ARCIL (plaintiff in the DRT-II) haci filed the statement of accounts before the DRT, u,hich rvas also marked as Exs.A79 and AB0 on 25.04.2018 itself. It is also admitted that the petitioners/ defendants chose not to lead any evidence or cross-exarnine the concerned officer of ARCIL orr the statement of accounts. The DRT accordingly was of the view that the petitioners could not file an I.A. for a direction on ARCIL to again produce a complete and accurate a 5 statement of accounts when such a document was already on record

10. As stated above, the DRT also noted that the petitioners did not fi1e any document to dispute the statement of accounts or disprove the claim of ARCll/plaintiff. Since, the petitioners also did not place any document before the DRAT to dispute the correctness of the recordings of the DRT in the order dated I a t I a

03.04.2025, the petitioners' Appeal filed before the DRAT was hence flawed from the very inception. The impugned order of the DRAT dated 04.O8.2025 accordingly, correctly found that the Appeal lacked merit. 1 1. It should also be reiterated that ARCIL had complied with the direction in Central Bank of India (supra) as far back as on

06.O2.2014 by filing the statement of accounts. The statement of accounts were marked as exhibits in 2018.

12. The petitioners however chose to file I.A.No.359 of 2025 on 04.02.2025, i.e., a-fter eleven long years and that too for a prayer which was r-rnnecessarf/, misconceived and only for prolonging the Suit filed by ARCIL 6

13. The Oourt is informed that the petitioners' appiication was filed at the stage when ARCIL had already completed its arguments before the DRT. The reasons stated above persuade us to be rn compiete agreement with the impugned order of the DRAT dated O4.Oa.2O25, confirming the order of the DRT II dated 03 04.2025.

14. We ma1'also add that the order dated 13.04.2023, passed b;, the DRAT, Kolkata, in I.A.No.517 of 2Ol9 filed by the petitioners for r,r,aiver of the pre deposit under section 1B of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2, has no reievance to the presen: dispute. The said I.A. was disposed of by the DRAT with a drrr:ction on the \^/rit petitioners to deposit 50% of the decretal amount as a pre-deposit within six weeks from the date of the order, failing which the petitioners' Appeal would stand d ism i ssecl.

15. The statement of accounts of the respondent No.4/Canara Bank remains part of the records in the O.A. filed by the respondenl. No.4/Calara Bank in the DRT (O.A.No. 1792 of 2Ol7). The petitioners are already party defendants in the said *;,j&j;' t;irr,'" 7 O.A. and have thus not lost any vital right in relation to contesting the said O.A. The present Writ Petition is misconceived ald without any merit and hence deserves to be dism issed.

16. W.P.No.27277 of 2025, along with a-11 connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER

2. One CC to M/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRt P.SR| HARSHA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies BSR GJP 3fr HIGH COURT DATED: 1710912025 ORDER WP.No.27277 of 2025 li' ' ,{ I 4p's \\, \':. .,'. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ( q ?J I i I I t I I i I I I i i i I I ' l I I I