Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SMT. VINITA BIPINCHANDRA GHODKE, PROPRIETRESS of M/s. PRUTHVIRAJ JAGGERY, vs CANARA BANK on 14 March 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
[APK] (MA No.18/2023) Page 1 of 2
14.03.2024
Sr. No.45
MA No. 18/2023
Classific
ation
No. of
Exh.
MISC. APPLICATION No. 18/2023
Smt. Vinita Bipinchandra Ghodke &
others
.. Applicant
Versus
Canara Bank
.. Respondent
Mr. Tungar Hrishikesh - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Mohan Jaiswal h/f Mr. P.N.Kapadiya – Advocate for respondents
1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the publication of the summons was done on 22.06.2016 for appearing on 24.06.2016 and accordingly 30 days’ time was not given.
2. The defendants have been set ex-parte only on 19.11.2016
and not on 24.06.2016, therefore the contention that the publication was not done properly is not correct as they had sufficient time to appear and contest.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the MA applicant pointing out the address of the MA applicant no.1 states that the bank has another address also but the service has not done on the said address.
4. The MA applicants are appearing only after the notices under recovery certificate has been issued which is again at the same addresses.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
[APK] (MA No.18/2023) Page 2 of 2
5. The Tribunal has seen the acknowledgement cards of the notices issued by the Recovery Officer. The address on the said acknowledgment cards are the same which are given in the Original Application. When the notices issued on the same address received by the same persons, as such it cannot be said that the addresses are wrong or other addresses are available.
6. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the name appearing in the plaint is Bannidhar and his client is Bansidhar, but he appears on the summons on same address.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that it could have been a typographical error in the name of the father but MA applicant no.1 is the daughter in law of applicant No.2.
8. Now when the property is put to sale, the applicant run before the Tribunal.
9. In view of the above, I pass the following order :
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
A. The Misc. Application No.18/2023 is dismissed. B. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site Ma dismissed.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad