HDFC BANK LTD. Vs. ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HDFC BANK LTD.
ASHAPURA MINECHEM LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
(3.) The petitioner is objecting to the Order passed by the Chairperson of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner-original applicant challenging the Order
passed WP.2822-2015 by the Debut Recovery Tribunal dated 28.12.2014 rejecting application
seeking leave to amend the pleadings. The original-applicant, petitioner herein presented the
application bearing No.29 of 2011 to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Mumbai under Section 19 of the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (R.D.D.B.Act) claiming a
decree against the respondent-original debtor entitling the applicant to recover a sum of
Rs.27,23,33,693.34 together with interest. There are certain other reliefs also claimed in the
application which need not be recorded here. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
application came to be tendered by the original-applicant seeking leave to amend the
original-application. By virtue of the amendment application, applicant seeks to incorporate prayers
claiming recovery of arrears i.e. sum of Rs.64,25,64,810.23 due and payable by the debtor towards
monthly settlement from 26.2.2010 to 30.11.2012 under the said derivative transactions. The
application tendered by the original applicant has been turned down by the Debt Recovery Tribunal
by Order dated 6 October 2016, mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment under which
the recovery of additional amount is claimed does not relate back to the date of presentation of
original-application. The Tribunal has also taken view that the proposed amendment is based on a
new cause of action and shall be WP.2822-2015 effective from the date of the proposed amendment
or the proposed amendment introduces a further claim. It is recorded in the Order that original
application must be tried only on the original cause of action which is a settled principle of law and
that the proposed amendment would relate back to the original application. The adverse order
passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal was subject matter before the Appellate Court where the
appeal has also been rejected. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proposed amendment
thus relates to the subject matter of the suit and it does not necessarily change the character of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.