VARDHAN MARKETING COMPANY vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 16 May 2026

**ORDER**

In the above MA the petitioner has prayed to condone the delay of 688 days in filing the set aside application and pass such further orders as are deemed fit proper in the circumstance of the case.

As per MA the applicant is defendant in OA No. 826/2020 filed by the Respondent bank for recovery of an alleged loan amount. In this OA the applicant has not received any notice on 06.01.2023 and the previous dates. The applicant did not receive any notice with regard to impugned O.A No.826/2020. This fact came in the knowledge of the applicant on 09.08.2023. OA is allowed exparte with costs issued recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 33,27,750.25ps. The applicant filed the application on 09.08.2023 vide IA 1857/2023 but this court has not considered that petition while delivering the order dt. 10.08.2023. The Respondent bank suppressed the issue and obtained exparte order. The Respondent bank did not file part satisfaction memo before this Tribunal. As per applicant IA 1857/2023 was rejected for want of certain clarification and non curing of the defects in IA. There was a communication gap between the applicant and his counsel due to ill health. The mistake committed by the petitioner is neither willful nor wanted. This Tribunal passed order on 10.08.2023 in O.A. No. 826/2020 the respondent bank issued notice dt. 02.09.2023 notice of 15 days for sale of movable asses under Rule 8 of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002.

The petitioner informed that as per Hon'ble High court this petitioner has paid amount and balance amount is only Rs. 17,15,860.25ps. As per OTS assurance the borrower paid Rs. 90,000/- on 22.09.2023 , Rs. 90,000/- on 23.09.2023 and again on 24.09.2023 the borrower paid Rs. 20,000/-. After that borrower went for OTS. The petitioner filed petition for OTS ON 30.11.2023 for an amount of Rs 5,00,000/-. The matter was coming for OTS in the meanwhile on 11.12.2023 the bank people trespassed into house of the borrower and threatened the borrowers family. The borrower filed police case against the bank authorities and police filed charge sheet numbers as CC No. 2673/2024 before the court. On 14.12.2023 the borrower met the AGM and gave another OTS request letter for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The borrower received the reply on 26.12.2023 requesting to improve his offer. On 05.1.2024 the borrower send a letter for OTS to AGM for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The bank officials want to file false cases including SC/ST cases against the borrower. The bank authorities has confirmed the sale infavour of the Auction purchaser. The Act of the Respondent bank are illegal and arbitrary and non constitutional. The bank authorities illegally auctioned the property. The bank has not disclosed the amount paid by the applicant in this case. No valid or effective notice is served on the borrower. The petitioner has sufficient ground to condone the delay.

2. The petitioner has filed the following documents with MA

- (a) OA No. 826/2020 Order of the Hon'ble Debts Recovery Tribunal dt. 10.08.2023

- (b) Reply to my Representation dt. 03.07.2025

- (c) Rejoinder sent by the applicant dt. 18.07.2025

- (d) Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Petitioner(s) for Special Leave to Appeal© No(s) 12920/2025 dt. 19.05.2025

- (e) I.A.No. 1617/2020 in S.ANO. 270/2020 dt. 25.03.2021

- (f) Lab Report of the Applicant (COVID-2)

- (g) W.P.No. 29531/2021 dt. 14.12.2021

- (h) Payment Receipt issued by the Bank dt. 23.02.2022

- (i) Hon'ble Supreme court Judgement in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another versus Mst. Katiji and others dt. 19.02.1987

- (j) IA No. 1857/2023 in O.A No. 826/2020 dt. 09.08.2023

3. The Respondent bank has filed counter on 04.03.2026. In counter the Respondent bank has prayed to dismiss the MA with costs.

As per counter the petitioner availed credit facilities from the Respondent bank and executed all the necessary documents in favour of the Respondent bank. The petitioner failed to repay the amount as per sanctioned terms and conditions. The Respondent bank classified the account of the Applicant as NPA and filed OA.No. 826/2020 before this Tribunal. Notice to the petitioner was served and case was set exparte on 06.01.2023 and finally the said OA was allowed on 11.08.2023. The petitioner have received the summons issued by the Tribunal but failed to appear intentionally and subsequently approached the Hon'ble High court by filing number of writ petitioners wherein they also referred about the exparte decree passed by Tribunal. From which clearly established the knowledge of this exparte order. After 02 years the petitioner has filed present petition to condone the delay of 688 days without any sufficient and cogent reason. The petitioners are chronic litigants and having he knowledge of the order in OA No. 826/2020. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court by filing several writ petitions which were dismissed against the petitioner.

The petitioner has also filed rejoinder dt. 01.04.2026. In this rejoinder the petitioner has again prayed to condone the delay and set aside the exparte final order dt. 10.08.2023 and restore the OA and permit the petitioner to file written statement along with supporting documents. In this rejoinder the applicant has described about the SARFAESI proceedings and SARFAESI Appeal also. As per this rejoinder the Respondent bank has knowledge of the petitioners address but they deliberately deliver for service of notice in OA which is defective.

4. The applicant has also filed written arguments dt. 07.05.2023, which is on record.

5. The petitioner has also filed the following documents with rejoinder dt. 01.04.2026:

- (a) Loan sanction letter dt. 05.06.2015

- (b) OA wrong service letter address page/affidavit dt. 31.10.2020

- © OA correct schedule address page dt. 31.10.202

- (d) DRT Summons dt. 18.02.2020

- (e) Postal return " No such person in the address" dt. 19.05.2022

- (f) Paper publication dt. 02.08.2022

- (g) Exparte final order dt. 10.08.2023 dt. 10.08.2023

- (h) SA 438/2019 affidavit dt. 18.11.2019

- (i) SA 438/2019 Order dt. 18.12.2019

- (j) SA 270/2020 affidavit dt. 29.10.2020

- (k) SA 270/2020 Order dt. 09.03.2023

- (l) W.P.no 29531/2021 order dt. 24.03.2022

- (m) Payment receipts totaling Rs. 13,12,000/- dt. 18.12.2021

- (n) Representation showing payemtns dt. 22.02.2022

- (o) Evidence affidavit/dues certificate dt 08.06.2023 dt. 08.06.2023

- (p) C. Prabhakar Rao V Sama Mahipal Reddy, 2025 INSC 311 DT. 04.03.2025

- (q) G.P Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 dt. 03.03.2000

- ® Parimal Vs. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545 DT. 08.02.2011

- (s) Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 DT. 17.12.2004

6. After perusal of the record of OA 826/2020, I find that bank authorities has filed OA on 20.11.2020. After perusal of the order sheet of the OA 826/2020 I find that summons were send but it was not served. Hence paper publication for service of summons was ordered and in compliance of order summons was published in The Hindu Newspaper dt. 07.07.2022. On 02.08.2022 no one appeared on behalf of defendants. Vide order dt. 27.10.2022 this OA was fixed for written statement on 06.01.2023. On fixed date 06.10.2023 defendant was absent and defendant was debarred from filing written statement and case was set exparte against the defendant and fixed the case for exparte evidence. Later on 10.07.2023 witness was examined. On 10.07.2023 heard the applicant and fixed the case for orders on 10.08.2023. In the above OA, order was passed.

The applicant has filed the present MA on 28.07.2025. In the above MA the applicant has submitted as follows:

*" I came to know that only one of my friend from Visakhapatnam telephoned and talked about the O.A.No. 826/2020 then immediately we filed application on 09.08.2023 vide I.A.No. 1857/2023 in OA 826/2020 on the file of this Hon'ble Court, the same is not considered while delivering the order dt. 10.08.2023. The OA is allowed exparte with costs issue recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 33,27,750.25ps.*

I also perused the photocopy of IA No. 1857/2023. It reveal that IA 1857/2023 in OA was filed with cuttings in the prayer and in other columns. In MA the applicant has further submitted that IA 1857/2023 was rejected for want of certain clarifications. Because of non-curing of the defects his IA is rejected. The applicant has further submitted as follows:

*"Since my IA 1857/2023 is rejected, I am unable to give information to this Hon'ble Court."*

After scanning the facts of MA I find that applicant had filed IA 1857/2023. The applicant did not clarify some facts and at the stage of admission before the Registry and it also reveals that this IA 1857/2023 did not come before court for hearing.

In the light of above facts submitted by applicant, on enquiry of matter the scrutiny assistant filed a report dt. 16.05.2026, which is forwarded by the Ld. Registrar and on perusal of the report dt. 16.05.2026 I find that the applicant filed IA 1857/2023 on 09.08.2023 through online to set aside the exparte order dt. 06.01.2023. The OA was posted for orders on 10.08.2023. The Ld. Counsel was advised to file a re-open petition, before filing set aside petition. Since the case was posted for order on 10.08.2023. The petitioner modified the petition prayer as reopen petition and uploaded the same on 11.08.2023 i.e after the final order passed in OA 826/2020 dt. 10.08.2023.

From the above fact it is clear that applicant has knowledge about the fixing the case exparte on 09.08.2023. In this case final order was passed on 10.08.2023. Hence the applicant had knowledge about this case. On 09.08.2023 in IA 1857/2023 the applicant has not removed the defects and due to this reason IA 1857/2023 had not come before the court for hearing. The applicant may file the petition to set aside the exparte order within time from 11.08.2023 but it is clear that in this case having sufficient knowledge about the exparte proceedings the applicant has filed the present MA on 28.07.2025 and the applicant has prayed in this case to condone the huge delay of 688 days in filing set aside application.

After scanning all the facts, I find that the applicant had knowledge about the case before passing the order in OA 826/2020. The applicant has not properly explained the delay of 688 days in filing the present petition.

On the basis of above discussion MA 73/2025 is hereby dismissed on contest without costs. I also direct the office to keep the report of scrutiny assistant along with documents of MA 73/2025.

(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 16^th day of May, 2026)

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM