Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Sri Hari Krisha Embroidery and Ors vs DENA BANK on 15 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 38 of 2019
Dena Bank Vs. Sri Hari Krishna Embroidery & Ors.
15.05.2019
Item No.6
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Roy, Counsel for the Applicant/Def.
The Applicants/Defendants have filed this application for setting aside order dt.10.04.2019 vide which they were set ex parte.
The Counsel for the Applicant admitted having received notices and that they appered on 15.01.2019 when the matter was adjourned to 09.04.2019. During the period, the Applicant/Defendants asked the Bank for providing of statement of account which earlier was not provided to them who rather intimated that the account has been regularised and the same will be ousted from the category of being NPA. But the Bank at the back has filed this OA for which the Applicants/Defendants had impression that the Bank will withdraw the same on the next date of hearing and could not appear on the said date. When the Bank was asked about withdrawal of the matter, they did not give satisfactory reply whereas during the said period the Applicants/Defendants were set ex parte.
I have heard counsel for the Applicants/Defendants and perused the record.
Before the prayer of the Applicants/Defendants coule be considered, it has been found that the Applicants/Defendants themselves have admitted having received notices and also appearance before this Tribunal on 15.01.2019 when they were given 30 days time to file WS and the matter was adjourned to 09.04.2019. On the said date neither the counsel appeared nor any one from the defendants put appearnace, hence, the Applicants/Defendants were rightly set ex parte. The ground taken by the Applicants/Defendants that negotiations were going on and that the matter was settled, hence they presumed that the matter would be withdrawn has no ground in fact.
Further, it is not the case that the Applicants/Defendants or their counsel were not in the knowledge of hearing rather it is an admitted case that the Applicants/Defendants were aware and had knowledge of pendency of suit and in that case if the Applicants/Defendants still ignore the litigation, the Court does not think to grant any relief. The law is otherwise very much clear as is crystalised by Hon’ble High Court in case of Ajita Sharma Vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma (1999(1) Civil Court Cases 363 (P&H) and that by the Hon’ble DRAT in Swaran Singh Vs. Bank of Baroda (Appeal No.322 of 2019).
Hence, finding no merit, the MA is dismissed. File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh 15.05.2019/cms