Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Varsha Abhimanyu Dhotre vs THE CITY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 2 November 2023
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.
<table border="1"><tr><td data-bbox="111 58 238 108">02.11.2023</td><td data-bbox="238 58 758 108"><u>Roznama-MDRT-III</u><br/><u>M.A. No. 145 of 2023</u></td><td data-bbox="758 58 893 108">Next date</td></tr><tr><td data-bbox="111 108 238 878"></td><td data-bbox="238 108 758 878"><p>Advocate Mr. Manmohan Rao for the Applicant.<br/>Advocate Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane for the Respondent Bank.</p><p>Reply to M.A. filed by the counsel for the Respondent Bank.</p><p>Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant, being a patient of blood-pressure, was not well and she was bed-ridden from 02.09.2023 till 29.09.2023 and there was festival season and it was difficult to contact the friends and relatives to raise the funds. On 03.10.2023, earlier Advocate did not appear and false statement made before this Tribunal by the Respondent Bank that statement of account has already been furnished to the Applicant. This Tribunal was misled that the Applicant was not interested in pursuing the present S.A. No.333 of 2022.</p><p>According to the counsel for the Applicant, she was under the impression that once the Advocate is appointed and has been paid the fees, the Advocate will appear and attend the matter but, the Advocate failed to appear. Because of fault of the Advocate, she may not be made to suffer and accordingly prayed for restoration of the Securitisation Application No.333 of 2022.</p><p>In reply, the counsel for the Respondent Bank opposed the contention of the Applicant</p></td><td data-bbox="758 108 893 878"></td></tr></table>
02.11.2023 M.A. No. 145 of 2023
and has submitted that the statement of account was supplied on the e-mail of the Advocate on record and physical possession has already been taken, so, S.A. be not restored.
After considering the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Applicant should not be made to suffer because of non-appearance of the earlier Advocate. Further, no prejudice is going to be caused to the Respondent Bank in case the S.A. is restored. The present M.A. has been filed within 6 days from the date of the dismissal of the S.A. So, in the interest of justice, Miscellaneous Application No.145 of 2023 is hereby allowed subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as cost to be paid to the Respondent Bank. The Cost of Rs.2000/- has been paid to the Advocate for the Respondent Bank present in the Court. Accordingly, Securitisation Application No.333 of 2022 is hereby restored to its original number. The present M.A. be tagged with the File of restored S.A. No.333 of 2022.
Now for filing Reply to S.A. No.333 of 2022, to come up on 22.12.2023.
*Chun* P.O. DRT-III
Closed