PRAGATI ENTERPRISES, vs HDFC BANK on 9 September 2024

1. 1. **Pragati Enterprises**, Regd. Office – Civil Line, Kutchery Road, Jaunpur, 222002, Uttar Pradesh, India. (PAN No. ALHPP1411G).

2. 2. **Sri Bhanoo Pratap (Proprietor)**, R/o 147 Sirkoni Road, Hanuman Ji Mandir, Shahbarepur Post, Zafarabad, Jaunpur, U.P. – 222180. (PAN No. ALHPP1411G).

3. 3. **Smt. Asha Devi (Guarantor)**, W/o Shiv Shankar Lal, Shahbarpur, Jaunpur, Zafarabad, U.P. – 222180. PAN No. COMPD6091L).

.....M. Applicants

Vs.

**H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd**, a body corporate constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at H.D.F.C. Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai – 400051, having other branches all over India including one at 38, Pranay Tower, Near Vidhan Sabha, Darbari Lal Sharma Marg, Lucknow – 226001 (U.P.) through Sri Suyash Naaraayan, Manager and duly constituted attorney. (IFSC Code – HDFC0000296).

...Respondent Bank

Present:

**For the M. Applicants** : Shri Avadhesh Pratap Singh, Advocate.**For the Respondent Bank** : None**Dated: 09.09.2024****ORDER**

1. 1. This M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants for recalling the order dated 16.09.2023 vide which the OA No. 774 of 2021 has been allowed by this Tribunal. The M. A. is barred by limitation and, as such, along with the M.A., the M. Applicants have also filed an application for condonation of delay.

2. 2. Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants is heard on limitation aspect.

3. 3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants that the notice in O. A. No. 774 of 2021 had been published in the newspaper namely "Business Standard" which is not widely circulated in Jaunpur area where the S. Applicants reside. It is further submitted that the M. Applicants came to know about the case when the Recovery Officer has issued the notice against the M. Applicants/defendants. It is submitted that there is near about 08 months delay in filing the present M. Application. Request is made that the delay may be condoned.

4. 4. Considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the M. Applicants/defendants and perused the records.

5. 5. On perusal of record, it appears that the present O. A. was filed by the respondent Bank on 02.11.2021 for recovery of Rs. 38,52,129.75 along with pendentelite and future interest @ 11.1% per annum with monthly rest. Further, this Tribunal vide order dated 16.09.2023 allowed the O. A. No. 774 of 2021 by determining the debts and holding the defendants, jointly and severally liable to pay an amounting of Rs. 38,52,129.75 alongwith pendentelite and future 2DRT, ALLAHABADMA 149 of 2024 [J]

Simple per annum from 02.11.2021 till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable with costs. Against the said order dated 16.09.2023 of this Tribunal, the present M. Application has been filed by the M. Applicants on 23.08.2024 which is obviously barred by limitation for more than 11 months.

6. The application for condonation of delay has been filed by the M. Applicants along with the M. Application stating therein that the notice in O. A. No. 774 of 20214 had been published in the newspaper namely "Business Standard" which is not widely circulated in Jaunpur area where the S. Applicants reside and further that the M. Applicants came to know about the case when the Recovery Officer has issued the notice against the M. Applicants/defendants.

7. On perusal of record, it appears that as per provisions of section 19 (4) of the DRT, Act & Rule 11 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the copies of the application & paper book were sent to the M. Applicants/defendants by this Tribunal on 22.06.2022 but the defendants/M. Applicants did not appear, therefore, this Tribunal has ordered to publish the notice in newspaper and subsequently, the substituted service by publication of notice by way of advertisement in newspaper namely "Business Standard" was also made against the defendants/M. Applicants on 27.04.2023. Since inspite of being afforded ample opportunities to contest their case, the defendants/M. Applicants did not appear before this Tribunal, therefore, vide order dated 22.08.2023, the defendants were directed to be proceeded ex-parte and the matter was listed on 23.08.2023 for ex-parte hearing and finally, the judgment/decreed was passed in favour of the applicant Bank (respondent herein) ex-parte against the M. Applicants/defendants.

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

3DRT, ALLAHABADMA 149 of 2024 [J]

10. On perusal of the Application for Condonation of Delay, filed by the M. Applicants, it appears that the present M. Application has been filed by the M. Applicants on 23.08.2024, for recalling the orders dated 16.09.2023, passed by this Tribunal, which is after lapse of more than 11 months that too, without giving any plausible reason. Moreover, proper notices were issued by this Tribunal and publication of the notices were also made, therefore, ample opportunity was already given to the S. Applicants but the M. Applicants failed to appear before this Tribunal to contest the case. Therefore, it appears that M. Applicants was not appearing in the O. A. No. 774 of 2021 intentionally. Accordingly, as observed in the above matter by 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 and are failed to advance any plausible reason for this inordinate delay, 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 the M.A. Thus, the M. application has 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.

The limitation petition in the M. Application, filed by the M. Applicants is, hereby, dismissed being barred by limitation. Accordingly, both the M.A. is 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 September, 2024.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

[R. M. Kushawaha]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

[R. M. Kushawaha]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad

VK