Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs HDFC BANK on 18 February 2019
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi
IA(M) no. 1160-61/2018 (in O.A. No. 179 of 2016)
PNB VS. HDFC BANK
Reserved on:30.01.2019 Pronounced on :18.02.2019
Present: Ms. Rama Arora, counsel for the applicant bank.
Shri Satyakam Chakraborty, Counsel for defendant no.3.
Shri Devank Maheshwari on behalf of Shri Jasmeet Singh, counsel for defendant no.5.
In the present matter, IA no. 1160 of 2018 alongwith IA no.1161 of 2018 has been filed for recalling of the order dt. 14.05.2018 thereby dismissing the original application for non prosecution and for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
In the present matter, it is being submitted that the present matter was fixed before this Tribunal on 27.01.2018 for passing appropriate orders against defendant no.1 to 3 for non-filing of written statement despite repeated adjournments and for disposal of IA no. 1870/2016 filed by defendant no.5, which was handed over to the applicant counsel on 23.08.2017. However, on the said date, the ld. P.O. was on leave and matter was adjourned to 14.05.2018. However, the said date inadvertently could not be mentioned in the dairy of the counsel and on 17.07.2018, the counsel was shocked to know that the matter was dismissed by this Tribunal on 14.05.2018 and immediately thereafter the present application has been filed. Therefore, non- appearance of applicant bank is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons as stated above and delay if any, be condoned in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above.
Reply of the same has not been filed. Further, the ld counsel for defendant no.3 & 5 stated that they have no objection for restoration of the present OA to its original position.
Heard. Record has thoroughly been perused. It is a matter of fact that IA no. 1870/2016 has been moved on behalf of defendant no.5 for deleting the name of defendant no.5 from the array of the parties and matter was adjourned for 23.08.2017, for filing of the reply and hearing of the IA, however, the charge of this Tribunal was with the ld. DRT-II as the present Tribunal was lying vacant and thereafter matter was adjourned for 01.12.2017. On 01.12.2017, the ld. Presiding Officer was on leave and matter was adjourned for 27.01.2018 and on that day, similar situation was there and the ld.
Presiding Officer was on leave and accordingly, matter was taken on 14.05.2018 and dismissed for want of prosecution.
It is also matter of fact that affidavit filed on behalf of Chief Manager of the applicant bank stating the fact that date could not be noted and there after vacations were there and he came to know about the said fact only on 17.07.2018. Taking note of the fact that applicant bank can not be allowed to suffer for negligence on the part of the counsel as recovery of amount of Rs.14,43,240/- is due in the present matter. Therefore, taking note of the above facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow the present applications and restore the OA to its original position. Accordingly, both applications being IA no. 1160 & 1161 of 2018 stand allowed.
Matter is adjourned for 09.05.2019 for filing of reply on behalf of the applicant bank with respect to IA no. 1870/2016 filed on behalf of defendant no.5 and arguments thereof.
(DHARMINDER SINGH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, DELHI
(Pronounced in open court) 18.02.2019
M