O.A. No. 46 of 2002. Case: Central Bank of India Vs Jumbo Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors.. Ranchi Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberO.A. No. 46 of 2002
CounselFor Appellant: Aditya Sharan, Adv. and For Respondents: Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
JudgesS.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer
IssueDebts Recovery Tribunal Act, 1993 - Sections 19(8), 19(11) and 24
Judgement DateOctober 28, 2002
CourtRanchi Debt Recovery Tribunals


S.K. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer

  1. Heard both the Counsels for applicant Bank as well as the defendants on 26.9.2002 and perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.

  2. The sole issue arises lor consideration is whether leave can be granted at this stage for filing counter claim by the defendants.

  3. It is the case of the defendants, among other things, that time for filing counter affidavit by them has not yet been over and natural justice demands that leave should be grained to them to file counter claim at this stage as the same could not be filed earlier due to fault of their dealing Advocate. They have mainly relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahendra Kumar v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1395, where Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that counter claim can be filed after filing of written statement, if it is otherwise within limitation.

  4. The main arguments on behalf of the applicant Bank are that under Section 19(8) counter claim can be set up only before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivery of defence has expired. It has been pointed out that defendants have filed their written statement much before on 12.9.2000 in which defence has been set up and pleaded and also the fact remains that the applicant Bank has already filed their evidence, and therefore, counter claim cannot be filed at this belated stage. The learned Counsel further argued that counter claim should be filed at the earliest and in case leave is allowed at this stage prejudice will be caused to the applicant Bank. The Bank has relied on various case laws such as AIR 1991 Karnataka 283, 2001 ISJ (Banking) 598, AIR 1989 Orissa 50 and orders dated 24.5.2000 of DRT, Patna in PT No. 169/98, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata.

  5. It is seen that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar and Anr. v. State of M.P. (supra), has held that "Rule 6A(1) of CPC does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter claim by the defendants after he had filed the written statement. What is laid down under Rule 6A( 1) is that a counter claim can be filed, provided the cause of action has accrued to the defendants before the defendants had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. Therefore, the counter claim filed by the appellant after filing of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT