UCO BANK vs Aashna Packers Pvt Ltd on 30 August 2018

MA No.81/18 UCO Bank Vs Aashna Packers Pvt. Ltd & Ors.

Item No.11 30.08.2018 Present: Shri Ashok Sharma, counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2

This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 for setting aside exparte order dated 20.02.2018. Alongwith IA No.540/18 for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the accompanied MA. IA No.540/18 The counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 has argued on IA No.540/18 first for condonation of delay of 151 days in filing the accompanied MA on the ground that the proposal was submitted by one of the director of the firm alongwith a draft to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakh and the assurance was given by the bank manager, the proposal will be accepted by the bank. As per the schedule, the payment was returned by the applicant/defendants to the bank. It is further submitted that the bank was accepting the amount on one side and on the other hand bank has filed the OA against the applicant/defendants. The applicant/defendants came to know about the OA on the summon received from the Recovery Officer for 28.07.2018. The applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 engaged the counsel on 28.07.2018 and the counsel informed the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 about the exparte order after examining the file on 14.07.2018. The inspection application was given by the counsel on 21.07.2018 and the certified copy of the orders were also applied by counsel. The delay of 151 days is neither intentional nor willful and due to the bank officials put the applicant/defendants in dark. The counsel for the applicants/defendant no.1 & 2 took a categorical stand that the notices were never received dasti or even by post as the bank has not filed returned back envelopes.

Before the prayer of the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 could be considered, I have perused the record and it has been found that the respondent/applicant OA bank has filed OA for recovery of more than Rs.35.00 lakh on 05.06.2017 for which notices were issued by this Tribunal which were duly received by applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 under their signature duly acknowledged on 15.09.2017 as well as through registered post to which postal receipts are on record as per service report filed by the respondent/applicant OA bank. After going through these facts which are duly proved on record, it has been found that applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 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 with intention to delay the process of recovery on the plea that OTS proposal was pending with respondent/applicant OA which is nothing else but only the delaying tacktick to hold the recovery proceedings which itself reflects from the conduct of the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 who still seeking time to pay the dues. I have heard the counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 and after going through the arguments made by the counsel for the applicant/defendant no.1 & 2 and in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.16963 of 2017 titled as Iridium India Telecom Ltd Vs Doha bank QSC & Anr., this court has no power to condone the delay that too 151 days to which no sufficient ground has been made by the applicant. Hence IA No.540/18 for condonation of delay is dismissed and disposed of accordingly. MA No.81/18 Since IA No.540/18 for condonation of delay is dismissed, hence MA No.81/18 also stands dismissed. (HARCHARN SINGH) Presiding Officer,

DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder