MS L E AND M W WORK AND OTHERS vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 9 July 2024

**ORDER**

1. These both M. Applications are time bound matters by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad passed in Special Appeal No. 118 of 2024. The relevant portion of the order runs as under:- "3. In that view of the matter, we dispose of this special appeal with the observation that in the event the appellant makes an application for early hearing of the recall application, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall accord primacy to this case and dispose it of as per his earliest convenience. This observation is made in view of the argument that coercive action is proposed to be taken in the matter and the recall application would be rendered infructuous, otherwise."

Since similar facts are involved in both the Mas and in the M.As, the said order has been placed on record, therefore, both the M. Applications are being heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. These both M.A.s have been filed by the M. Applicants for recalling the Ex-parte orders dated 15.03.2023, passed by this Tribunal in O. A. No. 316 of 2022 and O. A. No. 315 of 2022 along with the applications for condonation of delay.

3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent Bank primarily objected that both the Misc. Applications are hopelessly barred by limitation. It is submitted that since the M. Applications are barred by limitation therefore, both the M. Applications may be dismissed in toto.

4. Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants submitted that whenever the notices were issued by this Tribunal and served to the M. Applicants, the applicants approached to the Branch Manager and assurance was given by the Branch Manager that the M. Applicants had nothing to do with the notices. It is further submitted that since the OTS amount has already been deposited by the M. Applicants, therefore, the Branch Manager has told the M. Applicants not to visit Allahabad and pursue the matter therefore, the M. Applicants did not come to Allahabad to appear before this Tribunal. It is further submitted that when the notice was issued by the Recovery Officer on 26.09.2023 then the M. Applicants approached this Tribunal and filed these M. A.s.

5. Ld. Counsels for the M. Applicants further submitted that against the attachment order passed the Recovery Officer and the notice dated 26.09.2023 issued by the Recovery Officer, the M. Applicants approached before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad by way of Special Appeal No. 118 of 2024. It is further submitted there is direction of the Hon'ble High Court for earliest hearing of the recall applications. It is further submitted that there is unintentional delay on the part of the M. Applicants in filing the present M. A.s therefore, the delay, if any, in filing the present M. A. may be condoned.

3DRT, ALLAHABADMA 126 & 128 of 2023 [J]

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent Bank that all the notices issued by this Tribunal have been served to the M. Applicants as also admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants. It is further submitted that the copies of the judgments dated 15.03.2023 have also been served upon the M. Applicants. It is further submitted that after issuance of the notice dated 26.09.2023 and attachment order passed by the Recovery Officer, the M. Applicants approached to the Hon'ble High Court. It is further submitted that the notices were issued against the M. Applicants/defendants and not against the Branch Manager. It is submitted that the M. Applications are highly barred by limitation and the M. Applicants are failed to explain the day to day delay, therefore, the arguments of the M. Applicants on the point of limitation may be dismissed.

7. Considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the records.

8. On perusal of record, it appears that this Tribunal vide orders/judgments dated 15.03.2023 allowed the O. A. Nos. 316 of 2022 and 315 of 2022 filed by the applicant Bank (respondent herein this M.A.) ex-parte against the M. Applicants after affording sufficient opportunities to the M. Applicants (defendants of the O.A.s). Further, proper notices were issued to the M. Applicants (defendants in the O.A.s) but they failed to appear before this Tribunal to contest the O.A.s. This is admitted fact on the part of the M. Applicants that they received all the notices issued by this Tribunal and on receipt of every notices, they visited the Branch Office of the respondent Bank and on assurance given by the Branch Manager, they did not feel it necessary to appear before this Tribunal and they deliberately let the case be decided by this Tribunal ex-parte against them.

9. In the application for condonation of delay filed by the M. Applicants along with the M. A.s, it is stated that after receipt of the ex-parte judgment/order dated 15.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal, the M. Applicants approached the respondent bank and raised their grievance about the said judgment / order whereupon, the respondent bank had informed the applicants that due to some communication gap between the respondent bank and their counsel, the subsequent development regarding acceptance of OTS letter dated 02.06.2022 for Rs.67.90 lacs and thereafter deposit of Rs.67,35,889/- from 02.06.2022 to 12.09.2022 could not be informed. Further, the respondent bank assured the applicants that they may not be worried and they may not file any Appeal against the said judgment dated 15.03.2023, as the respondent bank itself will file an Application and get it corrected and they will withdraw its recovery proceedings pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal and on this false assurance of the respondent bank the applicants did not file any Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Further, the applicants were surprised when they received a demand notices issued by the Recovery Officer in DRC Nos. 414 of 2023 and 415 of 2023 demanding an amount of Rs.11,30,778.28 and Rs. 15,56,862.09 along with interest @ 10%

4MA 126 & 128 of 2023 [J]DRT, ALLAHABAD

simple from 01.04.2022 along with cost from the M. Applicants. The aforesaid demand notice was served upon the applicants only on 02.09.2023, and, as such the present Application is within 30 days from the date of service of the demand notice issued by the Recovery Officer whereupon the M. Applicants contacted the Counsel and these M. Application were filed. Hence, the same may be treated within time and the matter may be heard on merits.

10. In this regard, this is to be seen that during the arguments on the application for condonation of delay, the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants in the presence of the one of the applicants namely Sh. Gajendra Kumar Sharma, admitted that the M. Applicants received all the notices issued by this Tribunal and on receipt of every notices, they visited the Branch Office of the respondent Bank and on assurance given by the Branch Manager, they did not feel it necessary to appear before this Tribunal, therefore, it cannot be believed that for the first time on receipt of notice issued by the Recovery Officer in the aforesaid DRCs came to know about the pendency of the proceedings before this Tribunal.

11. On perusal of record, it appears that all the notices issued by this Tribunal had been served to the M. Applicants as also admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants. The copies of the judgments dated 15.03.2023 have also been served upon the M. Applicants, this fact is also admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants. Further, after issuance of the notice dated 26.09.2023 and attachment order passed by the Recovery Officer, the M. Applicants approached to the Hon'ble High Court who has directed as mentioned above.

12. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj &Anr. Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in [2013] 14 SCC 811 has held as under- "The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in 5DRT, ALLAHABADMA 126 & 128 of 2023 [J]

violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature".

12. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, filed by the M. Applicants, it appears that M. Applications have been filed M. Applicants on 03.10.2023, challenging the judgments/orders dated 15.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal, which is after lapse of more than 7 months that too, without giving any plausible reason. Moreover, it is also admitted on behalf of the M. Applicants that they had knowledge about the pendency of proceedings before this Tribunal but on the assurance of the Branch Manager they chose not to appear before this Tribunal. Therefore, as observed in the above matter of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the M. Applicants are found to be negligent in the facts and circumstances of the case and not acting diligently and remained inactive, therefore, there is no justified ground to condone the delay. Ld counsel for the M. Applicants failed to explain the day to day delay in filing of both the M.A. Thus, these M. applications have been filed after much delay. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the limitation petition. Hence, the limitation petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the M. A.s are also liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Limitation petitions in both the M. Applications, filed by the M. Applicants are, hereby, dismissed being barred by limitation. Accordingly, both the M.A.s are also dismissed.

This order shall not prejudice any order, passed by higher Courts.

I.A./Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

A copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per Rules.

Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 9^th Day of July, 2024.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

[R. M. Kushawahā]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

[R. M. Kushawaha]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

VK