Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
AXIS BANK vs CHATUR KUMAR SINGH on 14 August 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
Appeal Diary No. 465 of 2026
Order No. 07
14.08.2026
Axis Bank Limited & Anr.
……Appellant
-Vs-
Chatur Kumar Singh
… Respondents
Mr. P.K. Mukherjee, Learned
Counsel Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly,
Learned Counsel Ms. Chaitali Acharya,
Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for the Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 315 of 2026
I.A. No. 316 of 2026
I.A. No 315 of 2026 Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 281 days in preferring the Appeal against the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Learned DRT Guwahati in S.A.
No. 150 of 2024 & I.A. No. 797 of 2024 (Chatur Kumar Singh versus Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr.) whereby the S.A.
No. 150 of 2024 was allowed. The action initiated by the Bank including the Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)
and Possession Notice under Section 13(4) of the ‘Act’ were quashed.
Despite due service, none appeared for the Respondents.
2.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the records.
Learned Counsel for the
Appellants submits that the delay in filing the Appeal is not intentional and not due to the negligence on the part of the Appellant, rather, it was caused on certain grounds which relate to the misplacement of the records from the office of the Learned Advocate on record at DRT Guwahati. On getting the communication from the concerned Advocate on record on 27.04.2026, the matter was taken up by the concerned Authorities to the Advocate on record at Kolkata and the memorandum of Appeal was prepared and Appeal was filed.
3.
I have gone through the records. An email from the Learned Advocate on record at Guwahati was sent to the Appellant Bank on 27.04.2026 wherein the communication about the decision of the case was communicated.
Thereafter, the Appellant made all efforts to file the Appeal after engaging some Counsel at Kolkata. Prior to that as per the records, continuously the Appellants were approaching the concerned Advocate on record at Guwahati. It shows that there was some miscommunication on the part of the Advocate on record at Guwahati which resulted in delay in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, I found the ground to be sufficient. I.A. No. 315 of 2026 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4.
Admit the Appeal by providing a regular appeal number.
5.
I.A. No. 316 of 2026 Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the
Appellants. Respondents are already duly served but not represented.
6.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that despite due diligence excercised, Appellant could not file the documents which are necessary and relevant at the point of time for the just decision of the case.
7.
Having gone through the records, we found that the Learned DRT allowed the S.A. on the ground of violation of Rule 3(1), Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The documents in question relate to the service of Possession Notice, affixation etc.
which are necessary for the just decision of the case.
8. The
Hon’ble
Apex
Court
in
Chowdappa
-vs-
Hanumantharayappa & Others (2026 SCC OnLine
1509) decided on 6th of August, 2026, has laid down the law in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment which reads as under:
“12. The decisions relied on by the Appellant can be captured and summarised as follows:
12.1 An Appellate Court has a statutory duty to deal with an Application for Additional Evidence on its merits. The application cannot be ignored while the Court proceeds to pronounce the final
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment.
12.2 The Application must be considered simultaneously with the hearing of the main Appeal on its merits to determine whether the Court "requires" the documents to pronounce Judgment or for any other substantial cause. 12.3 The Appellate Court must pass a specific order either allowing or rejecting the application. If the production of documents is allowed, the Court is obligated to record its reasons for admission. 12.4 Before undertaking the exercise of evaluating the additional evidence, the Appellate Court must first examine the party's pleadings to ensure that the foundational case set up supports the introduction of the proposed evidence.
12.5 Dismissing an appeal without deciding a pending application for additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional error and results in a severe miscarriage of justice.
13. Leading to the conclusion that, in the present matter, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Cross-Objection without referring to, considering, or adjudicating the Application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for the production of crucial documents, including the Judgments from O.S. 369 of 1997, bank loan discharges, and surveyor sketches. The High Court committed a direct jurisdictional error by completely ignoring the Application while disposing of the Appeal, directly contravening the principles laid out in the decisions supra. The High Court had a duty to evaluate the Application at the final hearing to determine whether the documents were necessary to pronounce Judgment in a more satisfactory manner. The failure to pass a reasoned order either allowing or rejecting this Application before sustaining the Trial Court's decree resulted in a procedural failure and a miscarriage of justice.”
9. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and having gone through the submissions made, we found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 316 of 2026 is allowed. (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated 14th August, 2026 /tp