INDIAN BANK vs SMT SANGITA AGARWAL on 20 June 2022

ORDER

(Pas:red on 2oth :unel, 20221 Present M.A. arising out of O.A. 71 of 2015 has been filed by the O.A. defendant being aggrieved by the judgement/final order dated 21.06.2019 passed by this Tribunal wherein O.A. was allowed with the order that applicant bank is entitled to recover from three defendants a total amount to the tune of Rs.11,90,549 20 with pendentelite and future interest @ 11.25olo per annum with simple on the amount due. This M.A. has been filed for recalling aforesaid order. Section 5 application being I.A. 2042 of 202t has also been filed for condonation of delay in filing the M.A.

2. Learned counsel al)pearing for the M.A. applicant has argued that provision of Section 22(g) of the Act of 1993 empowered the Tribunal to recall exparte judgement and order. Hence, aforesaid section is required to be reproduced. Section 22. Procedure and Powers of the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal,- (g) setting aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or any order passgd by it ex parte; Aforesaid sub-section (g) empowered the Tribunal to set aside any order of dismissal of any application for default or passed exparte. In catena of judgement Hon'ble Supr,lme Court stipulates that court or Tribunat may recall its own order prima facie on three circumstances, if the order was obtaaned by frauds or misleading the court/Tribunal or any error or mistake apparent on the face of the order which is prejudicial to the parties. In this case aforesaid three cir(;umstances are not applicable. In the impugned judgement/order dated ,1.06.2019 it was recorded that after issuance of show cause notice, defe,rdant had neither appeared nor filed reply to the show cause nor writter statement or counter evidence. Consequently, defendant was set expai :. In the M.A. applicant averred that claim of the applicant bank in the O. \. was fictitious and exorbitant. Learned counsel further argued that applicant bank deliberately not disclosed various material facts. However, these i rguments are all matters of appeal. Objective of RDBFI Act of 1993 is speedy realisation of dues which are public money. In the instant case O.A. was filed in 2015 and it was disposed of in lune, 2019 after more than three and a half years and this pendency was for the cause of defendant.

3. M.A. applicant has llso filed Section 5 applicatlon for condonation of delay. Learned counsel f,r the M.A. applicant raised the issue of his wife's Covid infection. Learned counsel further stated that applicant first came to understand about the rr covery certificate when learned Recovery Officer sent show cause notice. rlowever, this submission has no force. Admittedly O.A. was allowed on i 1.06.2019 and M.A. was filed on 10.08.2021. Therefore, delay in filing the M.A. is more than 767 days, which ought to have been treated as inordinate delay. This is an attempt on the part of the lY.A. applicant to delay the recovery proceeding. Applicants failed to explain the cause of inordinate C lay in filing M.A. convincingly. Therefore, delay in filing instant M.A. ought I lt to be condoned.

7. In the result, M.A. s liable to be dismissed both on merit and on the ground of delay. Accordi 19ly, M.A. is dismissed. I.A. is also dismissed. No costs. Copy of the judgement/final order be uploaded in the Tribunal,s website. (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Court on this the 21rh June,2022) (4.K. CHATURVEDTT PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-IiI, KOLKATA

Case No. M.A. / L2/ 2O2L t.A. / 2042/ 2022 O der Sheet ( continuation) Punj:rb National Bank VS. Mr. Arnab Sengupta Order with sig natu re Date of

Order

2010612022 Order No.0l S 1. No.... . PKB For Applicants: For Respondent: Ms. layanti chosal, Ld. Counsel Mr. Arshad Ali, Ld. Counsel In this matter :rder passed in the court, which is kept in separate sheetr; containing three pages. M.A. is dismissed. I.A. is also disnrissed. No costs. (A.K. CHATU RVEDIr PRESIDING OFFICER , DRT-III, KOLKATA