Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MOHINDRS SALES AND ANR vs UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ORS on 30 September 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No. 422/2017
Arising out of OA No. 675/2017 (DRT-I, Chandigarh)**
**Item No. 17**
**Mohinder Sales & another
V.
Union Bank of India & others**
**30.09.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Ms. Kushiki Kashyap along with Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocates for appellants through VC
Sh. Rajul Jain, Advocate for respondent no.1 through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
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.
1. 1. Respondent no.1 Union Bank of India filed O.A. bearing No. 675/2017 which has been allowed vide order dated 17.05.2017. The perusal of order dated 17.05.2017 reflects that the appellants being the defendants never appeared personally and not represented despite sufficient opportunities.
2. 2. The appellant filed an application for setting aside *ex parte* order dated 17.05.2017 wherein stated that they never received the summons and came to know about the present O.A. on 20.06.2017 when they received the order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the DRT. It is further stated that the absence of the appellants were neither deliberate nor intentional. It is prayer that for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2017.
3. 3. The application was contested by the respondent no.1 Union Bank of India by filing the reply wherein stated that the DRT-I, Chandigarh has sent the summons to the appellants and through registered post and affidavits of service was also filed vide Diary No. 8022 dated 17.11.2014 and Diary No. 4649 dated 23.04.2015. It was accordingly prayed that the application be dismissed. It is further stated that the appellants were also served through publication on 25.10.2015 and the necessary proof of publication was also placed on record.
4. The perusal of record reflects that the appellants were served with the order dated 17.05.2017 on the address at which the notice of O.A. were issued to them. Sh. V.K. Gupta, Counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants were not served with the summons/ notices of the OA and prayer that one opportunity be given to the appellants to contest the O.A. bearing No. 675/2017.
5. The Counsel for respondent no.1 after referring that paras no. 11 and 13 of the reply argued that the appellants being defendants were properly served with the notices of the OA and the Recovery Certificate has already been issued against them and further recovery proceedings are continuing before the Recovery Officer. It is prayer that the present be dismissed.
6. It is reflecting that the appellants were properly served and affidavit of service was also filed by the respondent no.1. The service of the appellants was also affected on 25.10.2015 through publication. The DRT-I, Chandigarh has also observed that the copy of order dated 17.05.2017 was served on the address on which the notices of the OA were issued to the appellants.
7. After considering all the facts, there appearing no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, the appellants being defendants were duly served with the notices of the O.A. bearing No. 675/2017. The impugned order dated 04.08.2017 does not warrant any interference from this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The present appeal is filed to challenge the *ex parte* order dated 04.08.2017 as such appellants are not required to make pre deposit.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-N