HARDEEP SINGH vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 5 August 2019

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I CHANDIGARH

MA No.70/19 In OA No.126/19 SBI Vs Hardeep Singh & Ors.

05.08.2019 Item No.1 Present: Shri J C Kapoor, counsel for the applicant/defendants This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC praying for setting aside the exparte order dated 09.05.2019 passed against the defendant no.1 to 3. I have heard the counsel for the applicant/defendants and perused the record. The counsel for the applicant/defendants has prayed for recalling the exparte order dated 09.05.2019 on the ground that the applicant/defendants are willing and settle the account in One Time Settlement being a poor person. He has further submitted that the applicant/defendant no.1 is not residing in India due to which no summon has been received by him and the case proceeded exparte against him without affording any opportunity to the defendants. On perusal of record, it has been found that the applicant/defendants was having knowledge of proceedings pending in this Tribunal being duly served as per service report filed by the bank by way of affidavit of Shri Baldev Singh, Dy Branch Manager, SBI, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab), whereby the applicant bank has informed that the concerned person of the bank went to the premises of the defendants on 20.03.2019 for serving the summons issued by this tribunal asking therein to the defendants to appear on 08.05.2019 before this Tribunal. The summons were duly received by Shri Chamkaur Singh, father of defendant no.1 on behalf of defendant no.1 and for himself (for defendant no.2). Further, summons were duly received by Shri Gurmukh Singh, brother of defendant no.3 on behalf of defendant no.3. Thus all the defendants stood duly served. After going through these facts which are duly proved on record, it has been found that applicant/defendants are having the knowledge of all the proceedings the date fixed but did not choose to appears despite having sufficient time and now choose to approach this

Tribunal on the ground that applicant/defendants has not received notice has nothing except intention to delay the process of recovery which itself reflects from the conduct of the applicant/defendants. Hence after being duly satisfied with the documents placed on record and in the light of established law, the grounds mentioned in the MA are not sufficient to prove the bonafide on merit. Therefore MA stands dismissed on the basis of pleadings. File be consigned to record.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 05.08.2019