Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KRISHNAN RANGACARI Late MV Rangachari vs BANK OF BARODA on 21 October 2026
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.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 1225/2026 (Delay) in A.IR:2117/2026
Krishnan Rangacari V/S Bank of Baroda & 3 ors 21/10/2026
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant and R1 Respondent Bank are present. No representation for R2 to R4.
As this matter is taken up today, the original date of hearing, the application IA 1495 of 2026, filed to advance the hearing of this appeal from 21.10.2026 to an earlier date, stand closed.
This application is filed for condoning the delay of 36 days in filing this appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in OA 743 of 2024 filed by the Respondent Bank for recovery of Rs.2,37,19,625.66 from the Petitioner, the Petitioner filed IA 1099 of 2026 for cross-examination of the Applicant Bank’s witness as well as Defendant Nos.3 and 4. This application was dismissed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka at Bengaluru on 22.5.2026. Against this order, Petitioner filed Writ Petition WP No.18450 of 2026 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, and this Writ Petition was dismissed on 10.7.2026 with an observation that there is an effective alternative remedy available before DRAT under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, this appeal was filed on 27.7.2026. Thus, he seeks to condone the delay of 36 days in filing this appeal.
Responding to this submission, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that there is no indication of the date of filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, and when an effective alternative remedy was available, approaching the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru via a Writ Petition is impermissible and, therefore, Petitioner cannot be given the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
When queried, it is informed by the Learned Counsel for Petitioner that the borrower has submitted a forged colour xerox document for creation of mortgage / security interest and that aspect has to be clarified from the Bank official. So, cross-examination of the Bank official is absolutely necessary.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
The issue as to whether the dismissal of the application filed for cross- examination of witnesses is right or not is a matter to be considered in the main appeal.
In view of the reasons stated, and that the delay in filing the appeal had occurred primarily because of approaching the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, and with a view to give full opportunity to the Petitioner to prosecute this appeal, this Tribunal is of the view that the delay of 36 days in filing this appeal can be condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Library of DRT / DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 26.10.2026.
Call on 28.10.2026. Sd/-
Chairperson