MS CHEMCO ASPHALT INDIA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 27 November 2025

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW Date of order or proceeding r Office action taken with date MA No. 68/2023 27.11.2025 SI No.01 . This order is disposing of the M.A. No. 68/2023. This MA has been brought by the applicant for recalling the order dated 20.04.2023 passed in S.A. No. 252/2017 detailed as M/s Chemco Asphalt India Vs. State Bank of India. *rb-k A prayer has been made k an opportunity of hearing be given to the applicant. Written Subissions has been filed by both the parties. I have heard Ld counsel for the applicant, respondent bank and auction purchaser. It is submitted that on 15.02.2023 arguments for respondent bank and auction purchaser was completed and matter was reserved for order. It has been observed in the order sheet that applicant may argue the case in the meantime. The main grievance of the applicant \b- being that *:several specific dates Ld \r counsel for the applicant moved for hearing of the case but the judgment was prononounced on 20.04.2023 without giving any opportunity of arguments to the applicant. Thus, main grievances of the applicant being that judgment dated 20.04.2023 was passed by this Tribunal without affording any oral opporetunity of arguments to the Ld counsel for the applicant.. The plea of the applicant hinges around the fact that he :iI -/ Z/ a/

UPa argue the matter and it was mentioned by him several times that matter be heard, any proof thereof has not been filed by the applicant. I have considered the alternate statement, as well.The SA was brought by the applicant for setting aside the auction sale dated 16.05.2017 as well as the entire securitzation proceedings initiated by the respondent bank. Admittedly the applicant had taken Cash Credit Limit facility of Rs. 115.00 Lacs from the respondent bank, which he could not pay. It is stated that without mentioning the date of NPA in the demand notice dated 02.05.2016, it was served upon the applicant and it was not served individualy to the applicant no. 2. Similarly, the possession and sale notice was not served upon the applicants. It has been found by the Tribunal that applicants admitted that they have committed default in making payment and the applicant himself had annexed letters written by the bank requesting the applicant to regularirze the loan account. But applicant did not actog upon regarding the same. As far as possession notice is concerned it has been found that it has been served upon the applicant. The Tribunal has further observed that SA itself is barred by limitation, it has been found that sale was made after compliance of statutory rules and the bank is rightfully delivered the physical possession of the property in question to the auction purcasher after issuande of sale certifricate. In view of above facts and discussions

\ b I find that any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant even if the oral arguments was not heard by this Tribunal. Furthermore, I find that sufficient opportunity was given to the applicant for submissions of oral arguments. I find and hold that by the judgment dated 15.02.20231,any prejudice has not been caused to the applicant and I do not find any merit in the M.A. Accordingly, the MA is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Record be consigned to record room. Pending I.A. if any, also disposed off. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. (Dictated) b (Pravas KurmF Singh) Presiding Officer (Manoj)