InfraLive September-15, 2025

DRT Order Exposes Sashidhar www.infralive.com 15 InfraLIVE September 15, 2025 26.09.1997 byDefendant No. 2 (Exh. 93), Dt 29.09.1998 byDefendant No. 2 (Exh. 94), Dt 28.07.1999 by Defendant Nos. 2 & 6 (Exh. 95), Dt 28.07.1999 by Defendant No. 7 (Exh. 96), Dt l6.05.2000 by Defendant No. 2 & 3 (Exh. 99 & 100) Copy of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds (Exh. 97), Agreements of Hypothecation (Exh. 65, 66, 77, 92), Recall Notice/Advance Notice (Exh. 102 to 105) and Statement ofAccount (Exh. 100 to 108). The Defendants filed affidavit of one Mr Poshan Manna (Exh. 120 & 125). The Defendant No. 11 filed affidavit of MrARavindranath (Exh. 117). Rest of the Defendants did not file any evidence. 9. I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel representing the rival parties. 10. If the tenor of the contentions in the Written Statement is considered, it is more than clear that the Defendant Nos. l to 7 admit (i) grant and availment of the Credit Facilities from time to time, (ii) creation of securities (mortgaged and hypothecated properties), (iii) standing of sureties.All the defences are omnibus in nature and in fact do not call for specific treatment. Yet, for the completeness of the judgement, I deal them before which it must be said that there is nothing on the record either to disbelieve to evidence to establish the defence contentions. 11. The contention that the Original Application does not contain full details of how the debt is due, the circumstances under which it is due; that no accounts are given; that the power of attorney is not filed are factually incorrect. The bare contention that there is no compliance of Rule 9(i) (ii) has to be mentioned for the purpose of rejection. The Learned Defence Counsel at the time of arguments has urged that the application is bad because leader of the consortium is not Co- Applicant and the consortium agreement is not filed. I do not find the contention to be sustainable in law. The consortium in this case was for the purpose of advancing the Loan/Credit Facilities to the extent of respective shares. Each of the members consortium had advanced the Credit Facilities on its own and on the basis of security documents in their favour. The Original Application thus based on the security documents in favour of the Applicant could therefore be independently filed. There is also no law that the consortium agreement has nothing to do with the Defendants liability. There is no law that leader of the consortium should be made Co-Applicant. The next defence that the amalgamation scheme of Times Bank (Applicant Bank) is not filed has been taken up for the first time. No importance therefore can be attached to such plea. The further plea that the resolutions authorizing Directors to sign the security documents on behalf of the Company also does not fascinate me having been taken up for the first time. It is to be noted that the security documents bear seal of the Defendant No. l. The plea of documents having been signed when they were blank is mentioned merely for the purpose of rejection. There is thus no merit in any of the defence contentions which are liable