Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Potluri Sridhar vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 15 May 2019
1
MA.46 of 2018
in IA.1367/2017 in SA.205/13
*IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL*
**VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present :- Sri Doppala Vasudeva Rao, Presiding Officer Dated the 15<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2019
MA.46 of 2018
In
IA.1367/2017
In
SA.205 of 2013
Between
Sri Potluri Sridhar, Hyderabad
.....Petitioners
And
State Bank of India, Rajahmundry and another
.....Respondent bank
Ld.Counsel for the petitioner
– Sri N.Sanni Babu
Ld.Counsel for the respondent bank
– Sri K.S.Shankar
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**
This petition MA.46/2018 is filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the order dt.5.12.2017 passed in IA.1367/2017 in SA.205/13 and permit the petitioner to submit his arguments, in the interest of justice.
2. According to the case of the petitioners that the petitioner was ready on 5.12.2017 to submit his arguments but he felt uneasy and could not submit arguments and that the Tribunal dismissed the matter as no representation on his behalf. It has been stated that non representing the matter and non submitting the arguments on that day is neither willful nor wanton and therefore prayed to set aside the order dt.5.12.2017 and permit the petitioner to submit his arguments.
2MA.46 of 2018 in IA.1367/2017 in SA.205/13
3. Counter filed by the respondent bank denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that IA.1367/2017 was filed to restore the main SA and the same was dismissed on 5.12.2017 and again the present petition is filed restoring the IA.1367/2017 which is a petition to restore the main SA and since the year 2013 the petitioner is dragging the matter and that there are no merits in the above petition and it clearly shows that the petitioner was never ready to pay any amount and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Heard both sides and perused the petition and counter. On perusal it can be seen that earlier also the petitioner has filed a petition MA.43/14 to set aside the dismissal for default order dt.7.4.2015 and in order to give opportunity to the petitioner, this Tribunal allowed the petition and order dt.7.4.2015 was set aside and restore the SA but the petitioner did not represent the matter despite conditional orders and ultimately on 5.12.2017, since no representation was made on behalf of applicant, this SA was dismissed for non prosecution. However on perusal of this petition, no cogent reasons have been explained for setting aside the order dt.5.12.2017 and that I am of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the petition and is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the MA.46/2018 is dismissed however without costs.
[Typed to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 15<sup>th</sup> May, 2019]
PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM