Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/s Orange Home Decors and Furniture vs CANARA BANK on 26 July 2022
1
MA.98/2020 in OA.177/2019
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present :- SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated the 26<sup>th</sup> day of July, 2022
MA.98 of 2020
in
OA.177 of 2019
Between
- 1. M/s. Orange Home Decors and Furniture
- 2. Sri Pinnamaraju Buchi Venkata Satya Chandra Srinivasa Raju
- 3. Smt. Pinnamaraju Jyothi,
.....Petitioners/Defendants
And
- 1. Syndicate Bank (now Canara Bank) Mid corporate Branch, Vskp
- 2. Sri Kaligatla Rama Govind, S/o. Venkata Ramana
.....Respondents
<table border="0">
<tr>
<td>Ld.Counsel for the petitioners</td>
<td>:</td>
<td>Smt. Prakruthi Sailaja</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Ld.Counsel for the Respondent</td>
<td>:</td>
<td>Sri K.M.Gupta</td>
</tr>
</table>
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
The petitioners have filed this case against OP (Canara Bank) and prayed to condone delay of 311 days in filing the petition to set aside exparte order dt. 06.12.2019 passed in OA No. 177/2019.
The OP bank has filed counter and prayed to dismiss the MA with costs.
After perusal of the original record i.e OA 177/2019 I find that vide order dt. 06.12.2019 OA is allowed with costs and Recovery Certificate is issued as per order.
After perusal of the OA documents it reveals that notice was issued against OPs in OA 177/2019 order dt. 17.06.2019 and 30.06.2019 are as follows:
**17.06.2021** : D4 called absent though notice served through registered post. Hence D4 is set exparte. Summons of D1 returned as "No such addressee". Summons of D2 and D3 returned as "Door Lock". Hence issue fresh summons to D1 to D3 and simultaneously issue paper publication against D1 to D in Praja Sakthi news paper by 30.07.2019"
2MA.98/2020 in OA.177/2019
**"30.07.2019:** Paper publication filed against D1 to D3 by the applicant bank. Hence D1 to D3 called absent and set exparte. For exparte evidence before Registrar posted to 20.08.2019"
It is clear that notice was served against D4 due to reasons described in orders. Notices were not served against other OPs vide order dt. 30.06.2019. Notices published in news paper. After that case was fixed for exparte hearing and at last final order is passed in OA.
In the present MA the applicants have alleged that the petitioner did not receive any summons or notices in OA and they came to know the above suit proceedings only after receipt of recovery proceedings from the Recovery Officer in RC 314/2019. The applicants have not explained properly the delay of 311 days.
In counter, the present OP has alleged that Recovery Certificate was also issued to the said addressee. The petitioner has filed this petition only to drag the proceedings.
As per 5<sup>th</sup> para of the counter OA mortgaged property was sold under SARFAESI Proceedings and petitioners did not challenge the same and as such sale become final and even said amount was adjusted to petitioners loan account and DRT also recorded Part Satisfaction in RC No. 314/2019 on 09.04.2021.
Considering the above facts I find that applicants have not explained proper reasons of delay, sale has become final and said amount is adjusted to petitioner loan account and PS is recorded in the Recovery proceedings. This petition is only to drag the matter.
Accordingly I dismiss the present MA 98/2020 on contest but without costs.
[Typed to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 26<sup>th</sup> July, 2022]
*26.07.2022* PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM