Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) vs M/S S- 9 INFRA PRIVATE LTD. on 10 November 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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD
<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="51 141 208 168">Date of order or proceeding</th> <th data-bbox="211 141 658 168">Order with signature of court</th> <th data-bbox="661 141 778 168">Office action taken with date</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="51 171 208 908"> M.A. No. 01/2023<br/> Dt. 10.11.2025<br/> <i>Sc 01</i> </td> <td data-bbox="211 171 658 908"> <p><i>The case was reserved for pronouncement of order on the main application as well as interim relief application.</i></p> <p>The facts leading to filing of this M.A. in short, are as under.</p> <p>OA bearing no. 326 of 2022 titled Indian Bank Vs. M/s S.I Infra Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. for recovery of Rs. 7,40,72,033 with interest, was filed against the applicants. The applicants – Defendants were proceeded against exparte in that case on 12.08.2022. The matter was heard and finally decided exparte on 13.10.2022. The applicants- defendants came to know of exparte decree on 22.12.2022, when they received copy of R.C. from this Tribunal.</p> <p>According to applicants they had engaged Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav Advocate of Civil Courts Kanpur to defend the O.A.; he ought to have appeared before this Tribunal in the said case; not only this, he also didn't file his vakalatnama in the case. In these circumstances, it is prayed that expare decree dated 03.10.2022 be recalled and they be permitted to file written statement and contest the OA.</p> <p>The case of respondent bank is that the applicants did not appear before this Tribunal despite service, intentionally and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Moreover, the M.A. is also not filed within time.</p> <p>In the rejoinder, the applicants have reasserted their case.</p> <p>The Ld. Counsel of the applicants-defendants has argued that Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who was engaged as a counsel by the applicants in that case, died on 10.09.2022. It is a justified cause for setting aside exparte decree dated 03.10.2022. reference is made to <i>Rafiq & another Vs. Munshilal & anr AIR 198/ SC 1400, Shiv Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. Special leave defective 417 of 2021.</i></p> <p>On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel of the</p> </td>
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
respondent has argued that admittedly no vakalatnama was filed by Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav in the O.A. for and on behalf of applicants – defendants as specifically averred in the application itself; he was not engaged and representing the defendants in that case. The defendants intentionally did not appear and now they want to avoid the exparte decree.
I have heard the Ld. Counsel and examined the record. A party after receipt of valid notice from the court, is required to appear before it. A party may appear in person, through recognized agent or through counsel, by executing a vakalatnama in writing in his favour. This written authorization in the shape of vakalatnama authorizes the counsel to appear and make representation on behalf of the party. This Vakalatnama is required to be filed in the court/ Tribunal in terms of Order 3 Rule 4 CPC, and remains in force till it is determined by the court in the specified circumstances, mentioned in Rule 4. Admittedly, Shri Pramod Kumar Yadav had not filed any vakalatnama in the Tribunal in that case on behalf of defendants- applicants. So he was not their counsel, in the said case. His death on 10.09.2022, was inconsequential and had no effect on the OA which was filed against the applicants. Legally he was not engaged by the applicants to make representation on their behalf in the said case.
Admittedly, the applicants were duly served in the said case and were not present on 12.08.2022, and thus were rightly proceeded against exparte.
In the judgments referred to above, counsel was duly engaged by the party and despite that counsel did not appear before the court and party suffered an adverse order. For instance, in Rafiq (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court imposed costs of Rs. 200/- on the defaulting counsel. In Shiv Kumar Pandey (Supra) counsel (Shri Vivek Kumar Shukla) was duly engaged by them. So is the case with Raghunath Vs. State of U.P. & another where the counsel engaged by accused did not turn up to cross examine the prosecutrix.
In this case, before me, there is applicants' own pleading that vakalatnama was not filed in the OA by the counsel, who allegedly died on 10.09.2022 since there was no engagement of counsel as per order 3 rule 4 CPC, his death ✓
had no effect vis-à-vis exparte decree dated 22.12.2022.
No case for setting aside exparte decree is made out and this application is accordingly dismissed. File after completion be consigned to the record room. Pending all I.As have become infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.
*Virender Sharma* (Virender Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Allahabad