Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MRS RINKU KANWAR vs INDUSIND BANK LIMITED on 2 May 2025
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 37 Case No. MA/122/2024 IN OA/287/2022 MRS RINKU KANWAR Vs INDUSIND BANK LIMITED Date: 02.05.2025. Proceedings through hybrid mode Present: Shri Sharad Joshi, Counsel for the Applicant Shri Vineet Sharma, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI
In this matter, Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued about non-service of summons. It is submitted that address at which original application has been filed is not her address, she has been resided at some other address and other address was in the knowledge of the bank since 2021. There is F.I.R. lodged by the applicants which is still pending.
In the limitation paragraph, it is submitted that she came to know about the notice for settling sale proclamation on 02.09.2024 which was pasted at the address. When she is not residing at the said address, how she could have come to know about pasting of the notice of settling sale proclamation, the same is not disclosed as the occupants are her family members only.
Nothing has been disclosed in the petition as to who has intimated them nor that said pasted notice has been annexed with the petition. Further according to the applicant, the notice have not been served properly even the publication which has been done is not done in the proper newspaper as the applicant is resident of Ajmer.
He draws my attention to the regulations stating that it is primary duty of the bank to serve the notice as per the said regulations. Prior to the undersigned, joining this Tribunal, there was a practice of sending notice through registered post AD and Court of the Presiding Officer publication which was treated as sufficient service by my Ld. Predecessor.
Prima facie, the Counsel for the Respondent submits that this SA is not within limitation which according to him is also proved from the fact that Section 5 application has been moved for condoning the delay.
He further submits that proper service was affected and later on the pendency of the original application is very well within the knowledge of the applicant.
At this stage, Counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged only after pasting of the notice of sale proclamation.
This Tribunal feels that despite that the right course would have been to pursue objections before Recovery Officer and after decision of the objections, he could have come with an appeal before this Tribunal.
He has only obtained certified copies on 18.10.2024. Shifting the responsibility on to Registry will not absolve him from filing the MA for limitation.
Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to permit this MA. Right course is to get his objections decided and come with an appeal.
Accordingly, MA stands disposed off, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any. File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer