Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MAYA AROMATICS vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 7 September 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 68 of 2019 Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s Maya Aromatics & Ors.
07.09.2019
Item No.45
Advocate: Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for the Applicant/Def. Nos. 1,2 and 4.
This Application has been filed by Def. Nos. 1,2 and 4 for setting aside ex parte proceedings dt.23.07.2019 and decree dated 24.07.2019.
The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has stated that Def. Nos. 3 and 4 were out of station. Def. No.2 had received summons on behalf of Def. Nos. 1,3 and 4 without petition and documents. Def. No.3 and 4 knew about the date of hearing only when they came back.
The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has also stated that they had approached the Bank for settlement and had also deposited Rs.1.04 crore and Bank had also assured about settlement. By the time they reached the court on 23.07.2019 from Delhi, the matter was over and was listed for 24.07.2019. On equiry it was found that they were set ex parte.
The Counsel for the Applicants/Defendants has thus prayed that the ex parte order dt.23.07.2019 and the decree dated 24.07.2019 be set aside and MA be allowed.
I have heard arguments of the counsel for the Applicant and perused the record.
It has been found that the OA was filed on 19.02.2019 for which notices were directed to be issued on 03.05.2019 to be returned by 23.07.2019 for which service report having served the notices was duly filed by the Bank. Since the Defendants did not appear, they were proceeded ex parte.
The Applicants/Defendants have admitted that the summons were duly received by Def. No.2. From the perusal of the Service Report it has been found that Def. No.2 had received the summons for herself and on behalf of other Defendants on 31.05.2019, almost two months before the next date of hearing, i.e., 23.07.2019. The plea of the defendants that Def. Nos.3 and 4 were out of station has no
worth when the summons were duly received in their behalf which they have not denied. Even Def. No.2 could have appeared in person or they could have engaged counsel as they had almost two months time at their disposal and if the copies were not received they could have made a request to the applicant for the same which they failed. 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 07.09.2019/cms