Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Indian Overseas Bank vs MS Nikita Industries on 12 December 2022
Presented on:
17.07.2015
Registered on:
14.12.2016
Decided on:
12.12.2022
Duration:
Y M D
7 4 25
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.79/2016
Indian Overseas Bank
A Body Corporate constituted under
the Banking Companies (Acquisition
and Transfer of Undertakings) Act V
of 1970 and having its Head Office at
763, Anna Salai, Chennai and branch
office
amongst
other
places
at
Dahanukar
Colony
Branch,
Tal.
Haveli, District Pune.
… Applicant
Versus
M/s. Nikita Industries
A Proprietory Concern of Mr. Sanjay
Shivling Wagholikar
Age: Adult, Occupation: Business
R/at : Flat No.20, “A” Wing, 5th Floor,
Hastipuram Society, Near Navghruha
Mandir, Bibwewadi, Pune – 411 037.
And
Business at: 25/1A, Nandedphata
Industrial Estate, Nandedgaon, Near
Nanded Township Sinhagad Road,
Near Savali Dhaba, Tal. Haveli, Dist.
Pune 411 041.
…Opponent
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant
Mr. Ashok Tamboli - Advocate
For Opponent
None (ex parte)
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
(Delivered on 12th December, 2022)
1. By this application the applicant Bank has claimed that Judgment dated 18th February, 2015 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.397/2012 may be set aside and said OA No.397/2012 be restored for hearing on merits and also claimed relief of permission for amendment of prayer in OA and permit to file additional claim affidavit.
2. The opponent failed to appear despite service of Notice. Hence, I heard arguments of learned Advocate for the applicant who reiterated the facts mentioned in the application.
3. Perused the impugned Judgment. It appears that the applicant Bank had filed recovery suit bearing OA No.397/2012 against the opponent. The Original Application proceeded ex parte as opponent therein failed to appear. The predecessor of this Tribunal decided the said OA No.397/2012 on merits though it was ex parte and dismissed the claim of the applicant Bank.
4. In view of these facts, remedy available to the applicant Bank is to file appeal challenging the impugned Judgment and Order passed in OA No.397/2012. It is to be noted that present applicant Bank was not defendant in OA No.397/2012 and Judgment and Order was not passed ex parte against it. Therefore, since OA No.397/2012 has been dismissed on merits though ex parte, this Tribunal has no power to set aside the same.
5. In view of these observations, I hold that application is liable for dismissal. Hence, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(A) The Application is hereby dismissed. (B) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Order to the applicant and opponent.
Pronounced in open Court.
Place : Pune Date: 12.12.2022
Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune