Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PROTECH INDUSTRIES vs SYNDICATE BANK on 16 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 36/2019 Syndicate Bank vs. M/s Protech Ind. & Ors.
16.05.2019 Item No.1
Present: Sh.Satish Jaswal, Counsel for the Applicant/defendants.
IA No.176/2019
Aforesaid application has been filed by the applicant/defendants for condoning the delay of 24 days for filing of the Miscelleneous Application for recalling/setting aside the exparte judgment dated 30.01.2019.
The prayer of the applicant/defendant is that they were never served properly in this case and no bank official along with summons and copy of OA ever came to applicant to effect service. Even no postman concerned alongwith any registered cover contining summons and copy of OA ever came to applicant/defendant to effect his service. He further pleaded that no substituted service was ever effected upon the applicant/defendants. The applicant/defendant came to know on 18.03.2019 when bank official visited the house of the applicant/defendant then he immediately engaged the counsel and after verifying the same this present MA has been filed alongwith application of condonation of dalay of 24 days.
Counsel for applicant/defendants further pleaded that he was totally unaware and ignorant about the pendency of the case and passing of exparte judgement against him as notices was not served upon properly by the applicant bank.
I have heard the counsel for applicant/defendants.
It has been observed that the IA for condonation of delay and the Misc. Application has been filed on the same lines, i.e., for recalling/setting aside the exparte judgement on the ground that the Applicant/Defendants were neither served dati nor through registered cover nor through publication. But perusal of the record shows Respondent/Applicant OA bank was directed to serve the defendants vide order dated 06.06.2018 to which applicant bank has complied with the order and filed its compliance report with the remarks that defendants refused to accepts the summons and defendants neither allowed the bank official to enter in the premises nor allowed to paste/affixed the summons on the premises. Applicant bank has also filed postal receipts with the service report. Thereafter, applicant bank was directed to serve the defendants through publication vide order dated 12.11.2018 to which applicant bank has filed publication report which is on record.
Hence, applicant/defendants are served properly.
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 deost not thin 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, IA as well as MA is dismissed. File be consigned to record.
(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Manoj 16.05.2019