Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs M/s Ambika Concast Pvt Ltd & Ors. on 8 May 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.
MA 143 of 2017 State Bank of India Vs. Ambika Concast Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
08.05.2019
Item No.68
Advocates: Ms.Jyoti Sareen, Counsel for the Applicant/ Defendants Nos.1 to 4.
Sh. Vijay Sharma, Counsel for the Resp. Bank.
This Application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendants for setting aside Judgement dt.27.06.2017 and RC dated 27.06.2017.
The argument of the Applicants/Defendants is that they came to know about the ex parte order on 21.08.2017 when the orders of the Recovery Officer was recevied and prayed that the service was not effected rightly in the OA. The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has further argued that no acknowledgement or the return of postal envelops have been placed on record by the Resp./Applicant OA Bank. However, an affidavit of service has been filed by the officer without mentioning the date on which he visited the premises of the Applicants/Defendants for dasti service and if they were not available on that particular date, the Bank could have made another attempt. It has been stressed that before allowing substitute mode of service, no serious and deliberate efforts were made by the officers to service the Applicants/Defendants. Since neither AD has been placed on record nor substitute mode of service rules were followed nor copy of OA was served. Thereafter, even copy of publication of notice was never served upon the Applicants/Defendants. Thus, the Applicants/Defendants No.1 to 4
have prayed that it was not their intentional absence but due to non service of notices and prayed that the MA be allowed.
On the other hand side, Counsel for the Resp. Bank pointed out notices were duly served and sent through postal service which have not been received back as undelivered, which itself is a proper service. Moreover, the notices were sent at the last known and given address by the Applicant himself. Further the notice was not only published but pasted too at the consipicuous part of the property in question. Hence the service is complete. Since the Bank has not violated any rules and acted strictly as per the provisions made under the Act, the MA filed with the motive to delay the recovery process should be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and on perusal of the record, I have found that the Applicant has stressed over not serving the notices in the OA but on the other had admitted having received notices sent by the RO on the same address. I could not understand that how it can be possible that the Notices sent by RO were received by them whereas the notices sent by the Resp./ Applicant OA Bank did not reach them, the address being the same. Since they have not placed on record any document that they had changed address and had informed the Bank, their contention that the regostered notices were not received could not be accepted. Further, the notices were duly pasted at the consipicuous part of the property besides publishing the same which has been admitted by the Applicant himself.
Moreover, the Applicant/Defendants had sufficient time to appear before this court but he did not appear personally nor was represented. He also failed to prove on record as to what prevented them from appearing before this Court. Hence, finding no merit in the contentions of the Applicant, the MA is dismissed devoid of merit. File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer,
DRT-I, Chandigarh 08.05.2019/cms