Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SH SATENDRA KUMAR SHARMA vs UNION BANK OF INDIA (CORPORATION BANK) on 8 November 2024
DRT, ALLAHABAD
1
MA 35 of 2023 [J]
**Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad,**
9/2A, Panna Lal Road Allahabad
Presiding Officer : **Shri R. M. Kushawaha**
**MA Case No.: 35 OF 2023**
- 1. **Sh. Satendra Kumar Sharma**, S/o Sh. Kali Charan Sharma, Village Saharoi, P.O. Bhanoli, Tehsil Khair, Aligarh, U.P.
- 2. **Smt. Neelam Kaushik**, W/o Vivek Kaushik, R/o Vill. Akbrpur, PO Seekur, Sasni, Hathras 202139.
- 3. **Smt. Yogita**, W/o Nitendra Singh, R/o Gali No. 2, Krishna Vihar Pala Road, Aligarh.
.....M. Applicants
Vs.
- 1. The Authorized Officer, Corporation Bank, SME Branch, B-88/4, Mayapuri Phase-I, New Delhi.
- 2. Rakesh Singh, S/o Shri Madan Murari, through Managing Trustee/Chairman, Braj Charitable Foundation, Aligarh allegedly representing Braj Charitable Foundation, Aligarh (Alleged Borrower) presently resident of 19083, ATS Green Paradise, Greater Noida, U.P.; Permanent Adress – 34, Kasturba Path, North Sri Krishnapuri, Patna – 980013 (Bihar).
- 3. Pinki Kumari, W/o Rakesh Singh, R/o 19083, ATS Green Paradise, Greater Noida, U.P.; Permanent Adress – 34, Kasturba Path, North Sri Krishnapuri, Patna – 980013 (Bihar).
- 4. Smt. Kalawati, W/o Madan Murari, R/o 34, Kasturba Path, North Sri Krishnapuri, Patna – 980013 (Bihar).
- 5. Madan Murari, S/o (Late) Sri Surishti Singh, R/o 34, Kasturba Path, North Sri Krishnapuri, Patna – 980013 (Bihar).
...Respondents
Present:
**For the M. Applicants** : Smt. Soniya Singh, Advocate.
**For the Respondent Bank** : Shri Rakesh Mishra, Advocate **Dated: 08.11.2024**
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.
**ORDER**
- 1. This M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Tribunal in T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 vide which the T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 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. Ld. Counsels for the parties are heard on limitation aspect.
- 3. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants that previously this M.A. had been filed by the M. Applicants before the DRT, Lucknow and it was transferred from DRT, Lucknow to DRT, Allahabad due to reallocation of jurisdiction.
4. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants that the earlier counsel engaged by the M. Applicants to look after the TSA did not inform the S. Applicants/M. Applicants and no notice was ever served upon them, therefore, the S. Applicants/M. Applicants could not appear before the DRT on 19.12.2022 and the TSA was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-communication by the previous counsel conducting the case before the DRT, Lucknow, therefore, the S. Applicants could not come to attend the case and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution.
5. It is further submitted that one of the S. Applicants/M. Applicants was seriously ill and due to illness the M. Applicants could not come to attend the case. It is submitted that there is no intentional lapse on the part of the S. Applicants/M. Applicants. It is submitted that this M. A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 22.03.2023 against the order dated 19.12.2022. Request is made that the delay, if any, in filing the present M.A. may be condoned.
6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent Bank that the SA bearing number 464 of 2015 filed before the Hon'ble DRT, Lucknow was transferred to DRT, Allahabad due to change in jurisdiction on 04.04.2018 and the file was received in DRT, Allahabad on 05.07.2018 and since then none has appeared on behalf of the S. Applicants. It is further submitted that the proper reason for delay has not been given by the S. Applicants. Request is made that the delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned.
4. Considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the M. Applicants/defendants and perused the records.
5. As per RDB Act, 1993, any application under section 22 (2) (g) should be filed within 30 days from the date of order. However, on perusal of record, it appears that the present M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 27.03.2023 with request to set aside the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Tribunal in T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 dismissing the T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 for want of prosecution. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the present M.A. is barred by limitation and along with the M.A., the M. Applicants have also filed an application for condonation of delay.
6. On perusal of record, it appears that the S.A. No. 470 of 2018 had been filed by the S. Applicants/present M. Applicants before the DRT, Lucknow which was, later on, transferred to this Tribunal due to reallocation of jurisdiction and even after issuance of notices by this Tribunal, no one has ever appeared on behalf of the S. Applicants to look after the S.A. and, accordingly, vide order dated 19.12.2022, the S. A. No. 470 of 2018 was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Tribunal.
7. As per the Ld. Counsel for the M. Applicants the earlier counsel engaged by the S. Applicants/M. Applicants to look after the TSA did not inform the S. Applicants/M. Applicants about transfer of the case and no notice was ever served upon them, therefore, the S. Applicants/M. Applicants could not appear before this Tribunal on 19.12.2022 and the TSA was dismissed for want of prosecution which is only due to non-communication by the previous counsel conducting the case before the DRT, Lucknow, therefore, the S. Applicants/M. Applicants was unable to look after the case and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. Moreover, one of the S. Applicants/M. Applicants was seriously ill and due to illness the M. Applicants could not come to attend the case and, the delay in filing the present M. A. is not intentional as the M. A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 22.03.2023 against the order dated 19.12.2022.
8. On perusal of the Application for Condonation of Delay, filed by the M. Applicants, it appears that the present M.A. has been filed by the M. Applicants on 27.03.2023 with request to set aside the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by this Tribunal in T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 dismissing the T.S.A. No. 470 of 2018 for want of prosecution. The submissions advanced on behalf of the M. Applicants that the earlier counsel engaged by the S. Applicants/M. Applicants to look after the SA did not inform the S. Applicants/M. Applicants about transfer of the case and no notice was ever served upon them, therefore, the S. Applicants/M. Applicants could not appear before this Tribunal on 19.12.2022 and the TSA was dismissed for want of prosecution and that one of the S. Applicants/M. Applicants was seriously ill and due to illness the M. Applicants could not come to attend the case and, the delay in filing the present M. A. is not intentional appears to be genuine and plausible. Therefore, I find merit in the limitation petition. Hence, the limitation petition is liable to be allowed.
The limitation petition in the M. Application, filed by the M. Applicants is, hereby, allowed and delay in filing the M. A. is hereby, condoned.
List this case on 23.12.2024 for arguments on M. A.
[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad
[R. M. Kushawaha] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad
VK