Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs M/S SEISIN REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED on 13 November 2025
-+
\r
M.A. No.73 of 2019
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer Miscellaneous Application No.73 of 2019
Dated 13.11.2025.
Central Bank of India
–-–- Applicant
Versus
M/s Seisin Refractories Private Limited & Ors.
–-– -- Respondent
Ld. Counsel for the applicant: Mr. Suneet K. Sharma, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
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.
JUDGMENT
1. This Miscellaneous Application has been brought by the applicant for recalling of the ex-parte judgment dated 17.01.2018. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant being that the applicant No.2 was in judicial custody and without proper service the ex-parte judgment was passed against the applicants. I have heard the Ld. Counsels. I find that a letter dated November, 2016 – 2018 was sent by the applicant No.2 through Regional Manager Central Bank of India and further letter January 6, 2018 sent by the applicant to the Regional Manager Central Bank of India. It is apparent from both the letters that the applicant was having knowledge regarding the proceeding initiated by the respondent. I further find that from Miscellaneous Application that it has not
2.
3. a
M.A. No.73 of 2019 been stated clearly as on which date the applicant came from the judicial custody from where he could know regarding passing of the judgment the limitation is to be counted from the date of knowledge. 5 . It was upon the applicant to plea and proof regarding the factum of “sufficient reason” furthermore applicant No.3 was sister of the applicant No.2 she was not judicial custody. She was well aware of regarding the development being made in the case applicant No.1 is a firm which was perhaps being mortgaged by the Applicant No.3 .
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that any sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicant for setting aside or recalling the ex-parte order. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. File be consigned to record room. [Pravas Kuma Siigh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 13th Day of November, 2025. b X 1 : [Pravas Kumar Sirtgh] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (Mugish)