Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
GURCHARAN 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 69 of 2019 State Bank of India
Vs.
Gurcharan Singh
28.08.2019
Item No.90
Advocate: Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Counsel for the Applicant.
This application has been filed by the Applicant/Defendant for setting aside the ex parte orders on the ground that the case was fixed for appearance on 09.07.2019. The Applicant/Defendant could not appear due to heavy rain and by the time he reached the Tribunal, he had already been set 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 12.03.2019 for which notices were issued on 10.04.2019 to be returned by 09.07.2019 on which date the Bank filed service report of service upon the defendants through dasti mode on 08.07.2019. The Bank has duly placed on record photograph taken at the time of serving dasti service.
The Applicant was thus duly aware of the proceedings. If he had reached the court on 09.07.2019, 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