Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KULWANT SINGH vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 28 August 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 74 of 2019 State Bank of India
Vs.
Kulwant Singh & Ors. 28.08.2019 Item No.89 Advocate: Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Counsel for the Applicant.
This application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendant No.2 for setting aside the judgement/order dt.16.07.2019 on the ground that he was to attend the court on 15.07.2019. Since he was coming on mytorcycle and there was incessant rain, his motercycle was stuck in mud due to which he could reach Chandigarh only at 2.30 pm. By that time he was proceeded against ex parte. The counsel for the Applicant has prayed that the absence of the Applicant was not intentional and prayed that the application should be allowed and ex parte order should be set aside.
I have heard arguments of the Applicant and perused the record.
It has been found that the Resp./Applicant Bank had filed the OA on 30.01.2019 for which notices were issued on 29.04.2019 to be returned by 15.07.2019 on which date the Bank filed service report of service upon the defendants through registered, dasti along with photograph of affixation of notice.
The Applicant was thus duly aware of the proceedings. If he had reached the court on 15.07.2019, may be late, it was the duty of the Defendant to apprise the court about his late coming. But there is nothing such on record which could prove that he had reached the Tribunal on that date. We are satisfied that the defendand had notice of the date of hearing and sufficient time to appear, but he failed. It seems that he has ignored the litigation, therefore, it would be unfair for such person to say that he was late which otherwise not proved.
Since the ground taken by the Applicant is not sufficient to allow the application, the MA is dismissed.
File be consigned to record. (Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officr, DRT-I, Chandigarh 28.08.2019/cms