SRI KANISKA GHOSH vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 21 November 2025

Rina S. Order Sheet (continuation) Case No. MA 4 of 2023 (OA 210 of 2013) SRI KANISKA GHOSH -VS- STATE BANK OF INDIA Date of the Order

21/11/202

Ld. Advocates, Mr. Souritra Ganguly, Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee. Mr. Atish Ghosh. And Mr. Arindam Chandra appeared for Miscellaneous Applicant/ Defendant no. 5. Ld. Advocate Mr. M.K. Manna appeared for the Opposite Party (SBI). Miscellaneous Applicant/Defendant no.

has filed MA/04/2023 praying for recalling of order dated April 13, 2023 in O.A. No. 210 of 2013 passed by this Tribunal, in IA/641/2023 alleging that Applicant Bank has misrepresented Tribunal in dismissing the present proceeding as withdrawn and settled. Section 19 application has been filed by the Applicant Bank to extort more money from defendant No. 5. In the year 2005, defendant No.1 has approached the SBI for cash credit facility for a sum of Rs. 80 lakhs. In the year 2007, the cash credit limit of defendant No. 1 was enhanced to Rs. 100 Lakhs along-with bank guarantee of Rs. 20 Lakhs. Various documents were further executed between defendant No.1 and SBI, including alleged Letter of Guarantee, executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 including the defendant No.5/applicant in favour of SBI. Defendant No.1 has defaulted against the said facility and on 12/12/2012, the Authorised Officer of SBI issued a notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 on defendant Nos. 1 to 4 not against defendant No.5 as guarantor.

Rina S. Date of the Order

It is alleged by Defendant no. 5 that he did not execute any document in favour of defendant No. 1 to SBI; but defendant No.5/applicant herein had been portrayed as a Guarantor for the entire transaction between defendant No.1 and SBI and made a party in array of defendants. In OA No.210 of 2013 filed by the SBI there is no document which bears the signature of the defendant No.5/applicant. Defendant no. 5 has filed an application for forensic examination of signature of Defendant no. 5 with disputed signature in the guarantee agreement. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata in its report dated February 2, 2021 observed that the signatures of the defendant No. 5/applicant, as appearing in Deed of guarantee (SBI FORM C4) for overall limit dated 26.10.2005 and Revival letter dated 12.05.2010 are not the signatures of defendant No.5/applicant. Defendant no. 5 has seven Fixed Deposits, maintained with the SBI, NRI Branch, to secure repayment of certain credit facilities availed by partnership firm, namely, M/s. J. R. Enterprise. Thereafter, defendant No.5/applicant herein, further encashed 3(three) Fixed Deposits out of the aforesaid remaining 4(Four) Fixed Deposits during the year 2005 to 2010. The remaining 1(one) Fixed Deposit, was prematurely closed and rebooked for higher interest rate on August 17, 2006 for five years and again rebooked on January 24, 2012 for 10 years. It is contended by Defendant no. 5, that the partnership firm was dissolved with the prior knowledge and consent of SBI in or

Rina S. Date of the Order about 2005 and on dissolution of the said partnership firm, the Fixed Deposits of defendant no.5/applicant as referred hereinabove, stood released from all kinds of encumbrances. Thus, the said fixed deposit was free from all kinds of encumbrances. It is contended by Defendant no. 5 that fixed Deposit cannot be an encumbrance to the loan of Defendant no. 1. It is contended by Defendant no. 5, that SBI unlawfully and without any authority in any manner whatsoever encashed the said Fixed Deposit, without the knowledge and consent of defendant No.5/applicant and wrongly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 12,71,812/-. With these pleadings Defendant no. 5 prayed for recall of order dated 13/04/2023 and necessary direction to State Bank of India to release Fixed Deposit of Rs. 12,71,812/- and injunction against the Applicant Bank, SBI from entering into any settlement with Defendant no. 1 in connection with the proceedings in OA/210/2013 and prays liberty to take back original documents which were deposited in the Tribunal. Defendant no. 5 also filed supplementary affidavit enclosing deed of guarantee and other documents. Applicant Bank (SBI) in affidavit in opposition to MA denied allegations of Defendant no. 5 in the Misc. Application and stated that Defendant No.5 signed the guarantee agreement with other Defendants on 26.10.2005 for cash credit loan of Rs.01 core and bank guarantee of Rs.20 lacs total limit of Rs.1.20 Core. Applicant Bank has annexed guarantee agreement executed by Defendant no. 5 as Annexure ‘A’ and other documents. MA was heard on 26/08/2025 and order was reserved. Defendant no.5 was issued summons but he did not file

Rina S. Date of the Order written statement. Defendant no. 5 has filed an application dated 31/01/2020 for examination of signature of Defendant no. 5 in the Deed of Guarantee which Defendant no. 5 disputed with the admitted signatures in the passport A1, A2 and A3. Disputed signatures of Defendant no. 5 are marked as ‘B’, B1 to B26. Admitted signatures of Kaniska Ghosh in passport are A1, A2 and A3. B1 to B26 are in the Deed of Guarantee executed by all the guarantors, D1 to D5. Disputed signatures C1 and C2 appeared in the Revival letter dated 12/05/2010. Central Forensic Science Laboratory after examination observed as follows: “The standard signatures stamped and marked A1 to A3 are freely written with smooth line quality and gradation of pressure. These are consistent inter-se in handwriting characteristics, show natural variation and suitable for examination and opinion. The questioned signatures marked B1 to B26, B26/1, B27 are slowly and consciously executed with defective line quality exhibiting slow drawn nature of the stroke, careful joining abrupt change in the direction of stroke, hesitating nature of stroke. The questioned signatures show differences with the standard signatures in the handwriting characteristics of skill, speed, overall size and proportion, spacing and alignment. The questioned signatures marked B1 to B26, B26/1, B27 show fundamental differences in the execution of basi design of letters with their movement characteristics such as – the nature of buckle of ‘K’, the shape and termination of ’a’, shape of ’s’, execution of ‘k’, shape of G of “Ghosh” and relative alignment of

Rina S. Date of the Order letters in “Ghosh”; the execution of ‘o’ with clockwise movement in A1 to A3 whereas it is different (anticlockwise) in questioned signatures, shape of ’h’ of terminal of “Ghosh”, and the signature of A1 to A3 is with the formation of a dot after the signature whereas it is absent in B1 to B26, B26/1 and B27. The signatures marked C1 and C2 also show fundamental differences in the execution of basic design of letters with their movement characteristics such as – the execution of ‘K’, manner of combining “Kanishka”, relative size and proportion of “s’, nature of buckle of ‘k’, execution of “Ghosh” as well as manner of termination of ‘h’ are found different with A1 to A3. All the aforesaid differences are fundamental in nature and beyond the range of the natural variation of the writer. I do not find any characteristic similarities in the execution of the letters. Considering the fundamental differences without any characteristic similarities led me to the aforesaid opinion.” Defendant no. 5 without filing written statement, in IA/195/2020 contended that Applicant Bank prayed for certificate of Rs. 1,32,11,031.80 against the defendants including Defendant no. 5. Defendant no. 5 has filed IA/195/2020 contending that Applicant Bank has filed application with claim of Rs. 1,32,11,031.80 and pleaded that he has filed IA/901/2017 and alleged that he has been projected as a guarantor but he has not executed any guarantee deed and prayed for deletion of his name from the array of the defendants and the said IA is pending. Misc. Applicant has prayed for recall of the order dated 13/04/2023. On

Rina S. Date of the Order that date ld. Advocate for Bank filed an application being IA/640/2023 for withdrawal of Section 19 application. On that date Ld. Advocates, Mr. Nimish Mishra & Mr. Debjit Mukherjee appeared for Defendant no. 5. In the application it was stated that the Applicant has filed a Recovery application for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,32,11,031.80/- including interest and other reliefs. During pendency of the Recovery Proceedings there has been a settlement between the parties and the Bank has received settled amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- with delayed interest of Rs. 1,48,750/- towards full and final settlement of the dues and they do not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, OA and any other pending IAs were disposed of in the category of dismissed as withdrawn as settled. Order dated 18/02/2020 speaks that Ld. Advocate Mr. N. Mishra and Mr. S. Ghosh appeared for Defendant no. 5 and moved IA/195/2020 praying for examination of alleged signature of D-5 with admitted signature in Passport by C.F.S.L., Kolkata. On 13/04/2023 Mr. Nimesh Mishra and Mr. Debjit Mukherjee represented Defendant no. 5. No settlement agreement was filed before the Tribunal. Matter was settled between the parties not before the Tribunal. Bank did not press the OA and the OA was dismissed as withdrawn as settled. As alleged by Defendant no. 5, disputed signatures in guarantee agreement were not forged in tribunal but in Bank as per his allegations. Defendant no. 5 has not filed any written statement. The OA was settled between the parties and the Bank has received

Rina S. Date of the Order settled amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- with delayed interest of Rs. 1,48,750/- towards full and final settlement of the dues. Order dated 13/04/2023 was not only against Defendant no. 5 but also against other defendants. Applicant prayed for recall of order dated 13/04/2023. Section 22(2) of RBD Act provides that :

(2) the tribunal while adjudicating any application may follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely:—

(a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;

(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;

(c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;

(d) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;

(e) reviewing its decisions;

(f) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Rule 5A (1) of DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL (PROCEDURE) RULES, 1993, speak that : “5A. Review (1) Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.” Defendant no.

has filed application for forensic

Rina S. Date of the Order examination challenging his signature in the Guarantee Agreement. But he did not object for withdrawal of Section 19(1) application on 13/04/2023. Defendant no. 5 has filed MA/04/2023 for recall of order dated 13/04/2023 on the evidence of forensic examination report on the disputed signature in the Guarantee Agreement and Revival letter of Defendant no. 5 with admitted signature in the Passport. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant Bank has relied upon authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Murari Lal S/O Ram Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has relied their own judgment in the case of Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529 and observed that : "We do not consider in the circumstances of this case that the evidence of the expert is conclusive and can falsify the evidence of the attesting witnesses and also the circumstances which go to show that this will must have been signed in 1943 as it purports to be. Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly inconsistent with it". In this case the Misc. Applicant has only relied upon

Rina S. Date of the Order foreignsic examination report about genuineness of signatures in the Guarantee Agreement and Revival letter of Defendant no. 5. Defendant no. 5 has not filed written statement and he cannot take evidence of foreignsic report which is corroborative in nature. Defendant no. 5 before disputing signature in the Guarantee Agreement and Revival letter of Defendant no. 5 has not filed any case before any competent court for forgery of signatures in the Guarantee Agreement. Bank has withdrawn its case. Scope of Tribunal in a review application is very limited. There is no mistake or error in the order dated 13/04/2023 and on that day Defendant no. 5 was represented by Advocate Mr. Nimesh Mishra and Mr. Debjit Mukherjee. Hence, the MA is liable to be dismissed. It is ordered as follows: i) MA 4 of 2023 arising out of OA 210 of 2013 is dismissed on contest against the Respondent Bank. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer