Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Gopika Metal Works and Ors vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 29 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 71 of 2019 in OA 1385 of 2018
Gopika Metal Works & Ors.
Vs.
SBI
29.08.2019
Item No.62
Present: Sh. Sanjeev Roy, Counsel for the Applicant/ Defendants.
This Misc. Application has been filed by the Applicants/ Defendants for setting aside order dt.18.01.2019 vide which judgement and decree was passed against the defendants.
The counsel for the Applicants/Defendants aregued that the OA was filed by the Resp./Applicant Bank came as a shock since they were asking the Bank for statement of account in respect of their loan accounts. Despite their repeated requests the Bank did not provide them the statement of account rather filed the case at their back and keeping them under dark obtained ex parte orders and decree. The counsel for the Applicants/Defendants argued that since this court has ample power, therefore, the order dt.18.01.2019 be set aside I have heard counsel for the Applicants/Defendants and perused the record.
Before the prayer of the Applicants/Defendants could be considered, it has been found that the Respondent/Applicant Bank had filed OA on 09.08.2018 for which notices were directed to be issued on 24.08.2018 to be returned by 05.10.2018 on which date the Bank filed Service Report on the affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Vasudeva, Deputy Manager SBI, SAR Branch Jalandhar whereby defendants were served at their presnet address through registered post for which postal receipts dt.17.09.2018 were also placed on record along with dasti service report whereby defendants refused to sign the notice and a photograph has been placed on record showing that the notice was duly affixed at the addrss of the property. When the Applicants/Defendants did not turn up the summons through publication was also served upon them vide order dt.05.10.2018 for which also the service report has been duly placed on record.
From the above, it is proved that the defendants were well aware of the proceedings having been initiated by the Bank since the notices were duly served and affixed. The defendants have failed to prove on record that despite having sufficient time and opportunities and aware of proceedings why did not they come forward to defendant themselves or what prevented them 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 Officr, DRT-I, Chandigarh 29.08.2019/cms