STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Sri Suresh Kumar Saraff And Anr on 7 July 2026

Order

!3.07.2026 in MA/14/2023 State Bank of India Vs . . :• Sri Suresh Kr. Saraff & Anr Order with Signature CORRIGENDUM Applicant Defendant(s) Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary. It has been noticed that inadvertently some typographical mistake is occurred in the second para and fifth para of the order dated 07.07.2026 in the instant matter. Therefore, O.A. No.351/2011 may be read as TO.A. No.1154/2017. This order shall form the part and parcel of the order dated 07.07.2026. The other portions of the said order wi!I remain the same. \,,. ------ (RAKESH~I TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri

I ORDER SHEET DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI IA-case no.687 /2026· in MA/15/2026 Date of

Order

in MA/14/2023 State Bank c'f India Vs Sri Suresh Kr. Saraff & Anr Order with Signature Applicant Defendants Office action with date and dated signature of parties when necessary. Item No.04 07.07.2026 Order No.03 Present: Counsel for the applicant : Mr. Oebanjan Chakraborty and Mr. Saptarshi Kar along with Chief Manager, Mr. Rajnath Prakash. Counsel for the defendants : None. The instant M.A. has been filed by the applicant bank for giving direction to the Registry of this Tribunal to treat the cost deposited by the applicant bank before the ORT, Siliguri Bar Associatio,1 as per the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by this Tribunal by disposing of M.A. No.14/2023. From perusal of the record it transpires that earlier O.A. No.351/2011 was disposed of by this Tribunal on dated 15.03.2023 on the basis of submission of the proxy counsel of the conducting Counsel of the bank that the loan account has already been settled but later on M.A. No.14/2023 has been filed with a submission that actually the loan account was not settled and inadvertently the proxy counsel had made the submission regarding settlement and ~ the M.A. was not filed within the statuary period of limitation and thus one I.A. for condoning the delay was also filed and after hearing to the Ld. Counsel of the applicant bank, ~.A. was allowed and the O.A. No.351/2011was restored to its original position subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be deposited iri District Legal Services Authority, Siliguri but it has been deposited to the DRT, Siliguri Bar Association. It is pertinent to mention here that without any order of this Tribunal how the amount was deposited before the ORT, Siliguri Bc:1r Association and most importantly it should not have been received by the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association until and unless any specific order was passed by this Tribunal to deposit the same to the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association .. However, the said amount has already been derosited to the ORT, Siliguri Bar Association and the bank happens to be the custodian of the public money and the submission of the ld. Counsel of the bank ir,• that huge amount of the public money is . '\..-- involved in the matter and thus let the amount 1lj deposited to th~~.l_ S~uri Bar Association be treated as per the order passed on dated 02.04.2024 ~ disposing the M.A. . A..: No.14/2023. Accordingly, the instarit M.A. is allowed and the let the O.A. case bearing No.351/2011 be restored and let it be placed before the Registry Bench for evidence verification on dated 22.07.2026. List this matter on 22.07.2026 before the Registry for evidence verification. k. (RAKESH ~WARI) Presiding Officer