CWP No.20209 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20209 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.07.2011 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. C.B. Goyal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondents No.1, 4 to 9. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. While dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent- Company challenging the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal directing the impleadment of the petitioner M/s Kotak Mahindra as an assignee of the debt, DRAT observed that the State Bank of India which was original applicant shall continue to be the applicant in Original Application and Kotak Mahindra must be arrayed as a defendant. The contention of the petitioner is that the assignment is not in challenge and the petitioner must have been allowed to prosecute the Original Application in CWP No.20209 of 2010 (O&M) [2] substitution of State Bank of India and not as a defendant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend that no prejudice could be caused to the petitioner by virtue of the order, for even if the petitioner succeeded in its attempt to show that there was a valid assignment and that the petitioner was competent to enforce the debt against the respondent-Company, there would be no bar in ordering recovery certificate in favour of a defendant against a co-defendant. 3. The application that felt to be considered before the DRAT and subject of dispute before the Appellate Tribunal was only the entitlement of the petitioner to prosecute the claim as an alleged assignee of debt. If the Appellate Tribunal held that the State Bank of India shall continue to be the applicant in Original Application, it was perhaps justified in doing so, when the contest remained whether the petitioner could enforce the alleged debt. However, there would be no justification dismissing the appeal and at the time direct the person claiming to be an assignee should be arrayed as a defendant. The order is erroneous and I direct that the petitioner shall be added as a co-applicant along with the State Bank of India. All the contentions raised by the defendant regarding the entitlement or otherwise of either the original applicant or the alleged assignee shall still be available for the defendant to press forth. The writ petition is allowed with liberty granted to the defendant to urge all pleas regarding the alleged non-entitlement of the petitioner to secure the amount claimed by it. The petitioner is also entitled to show the basis of his entitlement. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the case stands reserved for orders before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Any CWP No.20209 of 2010 (O&M) [3] decision that may ultimately be taken by the Tribunal will conform to the directions of this Court. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. JULY 07, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE