SRI MULAPARTI MANGARAJU vs BANK OF BARODA on 15 September 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 902 of 2026

(Arising out of I.A. 1197 of 2026 O.A. 288 of 2020 in DRT- Visakhapatnam)

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

Order No.

15.09.2026

1. Sri Mulaparti Mangaraju, Residing at DR.No. 1-48, Madigapeta, Peera Ramachandrapuram, Anaparthi, East Godavari Dist, PIN 533342.

2. Sri Karri Srinivasa Reddy, residing at RS No. 74/2/A2, Bhupalapatnam, Rajanagram Mandal, East Godavari Dist. 533107.

... Appellants

--Vs--

1. Bank of Baroda, Rajahmundry Branch, PB No. 4, 31-140, Ajantha Building, Fort Gate, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. 533101.

2. M/s. CNX Corporation Ltd., at 12-A, Haji Kasam Building, 3rd floor, 66, Tamrind Lane, Fort, Mumbai – 400001.

... Respondents

For Appellant

: Mr. V. Roopesh Kr. Reddy , ld. adv. virtually For Respondent : Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, ld. Adv.

Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury, ld. Adv.

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

2.

Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by learned DRT- Visakhapatnam in I.A. No.

1197 of 2026 arising out of O.A. No. 288 of 2020 [Bank of Baroda Vs. Sri Mulaparti Mangaraju & Ors] whereby learned DRT

dismissed the I.A. 1197 of 2026.

3.

Feeling aggrieved by the order appellants preferred the instant appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that there are gross irregularities and blunder mistakes committed by the bank resulting substantial loss of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that appellants are entitled to cross-examine the bank witness.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel for bank opposed the prayer and submits that it is simply a delaying tactics on the part of the appellants. Witness was examined on 20.10.2023. No specific ground is taken for filing the application after three years seeking cross-examination by defendant no.2. Even no written statement was filed by the defendant no.2 rather adopted the written statement filed by the defendant no.1. Application was moved after three years of filing affidavit on evidence.

6.

O.A. was filed by the secured creditor bank against the defendants wherein defendant no.2 is a guarantor.

Written

statement was filed by defendant no.1, borrower, which was adopted by defendant no.2 before the learned DRT. Documents executed by the defendants, which were adduced by secured creditor in the O.A., was not disputed by defendant no.2 in the written statement. Written statement was filed by defendant no.1 in August, 2023. After lapse of about three years, I.A. was filed seeking cross examination of witness, which was dismissed by the learned DRT holding that defendants filed the application simply for lingering the O.A. proceedings.

7.

As far as issue of cross-examination is concerned, factually appellants moved the application before learned DRT after lapse of about three years without giving any reason for the delay.

Although it is true that bank officers can be cross-examined, but there should be some ground. It cannot be done in a routine manner. Evidence adduced by the bank on affidavit, which was on record after examination of documents, has not been disputed by the appellants.

Simple ground is taken that gross

irregularities and mistakes committed by the bank for which cross-examination is required.

We do not find any reason to allow cross-examination. In absence of any specific ground, cross-examination of witness cannot be allowed. In such circumstances, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.