MS Pudhari Publication Pvt Ltd vs Maharashtra State Co Op Bank on 19 November 2022

ORDER

(Delivered on 19th November, 2022)

1. By the present application the applicant has claimed to restore MA No.42/2014 filed for condonation of delay in filing Securitisation Application.

2. The facts mentioned in the application can be summarized as under:

The applicant wish to challenge auction sale of the suit property mentioned in the proposed Securitisation Application and for filing of that Securitisation Application delay of 2985 days ensued and for that MA No.42/2014 was filed before this Tribunal.

3. When MA No.42/2014 came up for final arguments on 26th July, 2019 the learned Advocate for the applicant was present but he without submitting arguments sought adjournment and showed his inability to argue. Therefore, this Tribunal on the same date i.e. 26th July, 2019 dismissed MA No.42/2014 for want of prosecution.

Therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application is filed by the applicant for restoration of MA No.42/2014.

4. The opponent No.2 M/s. Hind Gear Industries by filing Reply (Exhibit-9) resisted the application. The opponent No.1 Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. also resisted the application by filing Reply (Exhibit-13).

5. Heard arguments of both the parties.

6. The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

Whether applicant had sufficient grounds to claim relief sought in the application?

What order?

Findings:

1. Point No.1 – In the negative.

2. Point No.2 – As per final order.

FINDINGS

7. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that this Tribunal has power to deal with an application for setting aside order for dismissal of any application for default or any order passed by it ex parte as per provisions of Section 22(2)(g) of Recovery of Debts and

[Kaur] (MA No.66/2019) Page 4 of 5

Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short “RDB Act”). Therefore, application may be granted.

8. Per contra, the learned Advocates appearing for opponents submitted that the word “application” mentioned in Section 22(2)(g) is in respect of application filed under Section 19 for recovery of debts as per Section 2(b) of the RDB Act. Therefore, present application is not maintainable and it may be dismissed.

9. Perused the compilation and annexures to the application. It appears that MA No.42/2014 came up for arguments on 26th July, 2019 and the Advocate for the applicant was present. He sought time for arguments but Tribunal instructed him to argue the matter. However, the learned Advocate showed his inability to argue and therefore, Tribunal dismissed the application for want of prosecution.

10. At this juncture, it is to be noted that opportunity was given to the learned Advocate for the applicant to argue but he denied by showing his inability to argue. Therefore, the impugned order appears to be legal and proper. Therefore, an interference therein is not needed.

11. So far as word “application” mentioned in Section 22(2)(g) of RDB Act is concerned, it is in respect of application which is defined under Section 2(b) of RDB Act which means an application filed under Section 19 of RDB Act i.e. application for recovery of debts. If said application is dismissed in default then only provision of Section 22(2)(g) operates. Thus, provisions of Section 22(2)(g) of RDB Act does not contemplate for Miscellaneous Application dismissed either for default or for want of prosecution.

12. In view of these observations, I hold that application is liable for dismissal as applicant has failed to prove sufficient grounds. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

Miscellaneous Application No.66/2019 is dismissed with costs.

Place : Pune Date : 19.11.2022 Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune