ICICI claim against Subhiksha can't be thrown out on technicalities: Madras HC

Chennai: The Madras high court has upheld an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-1, Chennai, dismissing an application filed by the ICICI Bank claiming the defaulted loan amount from Subhiksha Trading Services Limited.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice V.K. Tahilramani and Justice M. Duraiswamy dismissed the civil revision petition filed by R. Subramanian, managing director of Subhiksha Trading, who was produced from prison as per the directive of the court on his request, and argued the matter as party-in-person.

The petitioner contended that since the statement of accounts marked by the bank were not accompanied by a certificate, the DRT had rightly rejected the bank’s claim. The DRAT should not have interfered with the DRT order, he said.

Senior counsel A.L. Somayaji, appearing for the bank, said a certificate has been produced along with the statement of accounts. Once a document was marked without any objection, the document cannot be rejected, he added.

The bench said the bank has produced the statement of accounts in support of their claim along with a certificate, which was not objected to or disputed by the petitioner.

“In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, even the production of certificate by the bank can be relaxed,” the bench added.

The bench said it was pertinent to note that though the borrower filed an application to cross-examine the witness, the DRT did not pass any order in the application. The DRT dismissed the original application (filed by the bank) and drew adverse inference against the bank as though it had refused to offer their witness for cross examination.

The DRT kept the application filed by the borrower for the cross-examination of the bank’s witness for more than three years. This being so, it cannot shift the blame on the bank.

The appellate tribunal taking into consideration these aspects set aside the order passed by the DRT, the court said. When the company was liable to pay huge amounts to the bank, the claim made by the bank cannot be thrown out on technicalities, the bench added.