Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
JAGTAR SINGH AND SONS vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 31 July 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-I CHANDIGARH
MA 56 of 2019 State Bank of India Vs. Jagtar Singh & Sons & Ors.
31.07.2019 Item No.55
Advocate: Sh. Jaspal Singh Pannu, Counsel for the Applicant/ Defendants.
The Applicants/Defendants have filed this Application admitting that the defendants had duly received the notice and had full intention to appear and contesting the same but due to sudden health problem and collapsing of Mohan Lal, Def. No.2 they were not able to engage counsel. The Applicants/ Defendants have also placed on record medical certificate issued by Muktsar Medicity Hospital stating Mohan Lal is suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and IHD and had remained under treatment from 15.05.2019 and was advise bed rest for one month.
The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has prayed that it was their intention to appear and to contest the matter, but due to above compelling circumstances they could not appear and prayed that the above order be set aside.
Before the prayer of the Applicants/Defendants could be considered, it has been found that the Applicants/Defendants were duly served by Registered Post as well as dasti on 24.04.2019 which was duly acknowledged. Meaning thereby that the defendants had knowledge of proceedings but did not chose to appear either through representative or by themselves. It was only one defendant who has been claimed to have been not well. Moreover, personal appearance of the defendant was not required.
It is not the case that the Applicants/Defendants 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 had sufficient time to apper before the court. Moreover, the Applicants/Defendants have failed to prove that what prevented him to appear before the court. In such a case where the Applicants/Defendants having due knowledge of the pendency of the suit but still ignore the litigation, the Court cannot think of granting any relief to them. 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 31.07.2019/cms