Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
LAXMI VAYAPAR PVT LTD AND ORS vs IDBI BANK on 20 June 2025
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 Sheet Case No. MA 31 of 2017 (OA 478 of 2012) LAXMI VAYAPAR PVT LTD AND ORS. –VS- IDBI BANK Date of the Order Order with Signature Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary 20.6.2025 (Sl. No. 28) Ld. Advocates Mr. Prasenjit Pal and Mr. P. Mitra appeared for the Applicants. Ld. Advocate Mr. Rudraa Dev Bagchi appeared for the Respondent Bank. Defendant no. 1, LAXMI VAYAPAR PVT LTD. has filed MA 31 of 2017 for setting aside exparte judgment dated 16/10/2025 contending that defendants received copy of exparte judgment on 05/09/2016 and filed application for recalling judgment being MA 31 of 2017 arising out of OA 478 of 2012. Defendant no. 1 also filed condonation of delay petition to condone delay of 204 days. Perused record of OA 478 of 2012. Service upon Defendant no. 1 was held satisfactory by order dated 07/05/2013. Thereafter due to refusal of Defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 to accept the summons as per the direction of tribunal, Respondent Bank made paper publication in Bartaman in Bengali, Sanmarg in hindi and statesman in English against defendant nos. 2 to 4. Respondent Bank filed opposition to MA with publication material. As per Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 order V Rule 20 Sub clause (2) Service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally.
2 Date of the Order Order with Signature Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary Applicant Bank made paper publication of summons against defendant no. 2 to 4 which is to be held service personally as per provision of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. So plea of Misc. Applicant for want of knowledge is not sustainable. Service against defendants are held sufficient. Defendants no. 2 to 4 have knowledge since 30/05/2013, the date of publication. Argument of Misc. Applicants with regard to condonation of delay is not satisfactory. Condonation of delay petition is dismissed. Subsequently MA 31 of 2017 arising out of OA 478 of 2012 is also dismissed. (Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer