Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
DR SWARAN LATA CHOUDHARY vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 27 November 2025
M.A. No.16 of 2019
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AT LUCKNOW
Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer Miscellaneous Application No.16 of 2019
Dated 27. 1 1.2025
Dr. Swaran Lat C:houdhary
Applicant
Versus
State Bank of India
Respondent-bank
Ld. Counsel for applicant: Mr. Anuj Kudesia, Advocate Ld. Counsel for Bank: Present.
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 setting aside ex-parte judgment dated 14.3.2018. The OA No.481/2017 was brought by the applicant-bank for recovery of amount of Rs.38,78,896/- along with pendent-lite interest and future. It is submitted that during pendency of OA, applicant deposited amount and there was settlement talk between the parties. In the meantime, ex-parte judgment has been passed by this Tribunal. It is submitted that applicant was not having knowledge regarding OA proceeding and further that amount already deposited by the applicant has not been taken into consideration.
2. As far as delay is concerned, this MA has been brought by the applicant on 27.3.2019 and the judgment has been passed on 14.3.2018. Ah h
3. 1 have considered submission made by the applicant. The only grievance of the applicant being that amount which has been already deposited by the applicant could not be submitted by the respondent-bank in OA. Needless to say, this matter may be heard before proceeding in DRC and the applicant-bank of OA is a# \J
M.A. No.16 of 2019 expected to consider the statement of account submitted by the applicant.
4. As far as recall application is concerned, any sufficient cause has not been shown for not bringing the OA in time, accordingly, MA is dismissed with the above direction.
5. Accordingly, MA is disposed of
6. File be consigned to record room. (Dictated\ \$b (Pravas Kun,at Singh) Presiding Officer Judgment signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 27th Day of November, 2025 . GJ (Pravas Kuinar Singh) Presiding Officer (Veeresh)