Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M Andimuthu vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 18 August 2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHENNAI
Dated this 18th Day of August, 2022
PRESENT: SHRI A.S. JAYACHANDRA
Presiding Officer
MA No.62 of 2019
IN
TA No.240 of 2018
Mr.M.Andimuthu,
S/o Mr.Murugan,
Nallathur Village & Post,
Kalakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
. . . Petitioner/Defendant No.1
Versus
1.
State Bank of India,
Kallakurichi Branch,
No.27, Gandhi Road,
Kallakurichi – 606202.
. . . 1st Respondent / Applicant
2.
Mr.Nagarajan,
S/o Mr.Nallan,
Nallathur Village & Post,
Kalakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3.
Mrs.Kalyani,
W/o Mr.Nagarajan,
Nallathur Village & Post,
Kalakurichi Taluk,
Villupuram District.
. . . Respondents 2 & 3/Defendants 2 & 3
Counsel for Petitioner
:-
M/s.A.Ravichandran
Counsel for Respondent
:-
M/s.RRK Associates
* * *
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.
: - O R D E R - :
None for parties. Since this IA is not being pursued and the same ispending for a long time - the same is taken up for disposal on merits.
1. This application is filed under Section 22(2) (g) r/w section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, prays for setting aside the exparte final order dated 07/03/2019.
2. The applicant is the first defendant in TA No. 240/2018 (OA No. 701/2014). It is his case that he received a cheque of Rs. 11,03,000/- dated 31/07/2007 without his knowledge. He gave the cheque to the dealer who misused the signature. A dealer is one Mr.Murugan, the Sales Manager of ESSAR Tractor Company who had promised him to help in purchasing the tractor.
3. The said Mr.Murugan had obtained RC of the tractor in the name of this applicant and he came to know of the same on 02/02/2020. It is said that he filed police compliant also and communicated to the applicant bank. It is his case that he has not obtained any loan.
4. It is also pleaded that he came to know about the exparte final order only on 28/06/2019 and hence this application.
5. From the pleadings, it is clear that there is no reason pleaded for having remained exparte.
6. It is seen from the record, that the SBI had filed OA No. 701/2014 against 3 Defendants. The first defendant is the applicant here in.
7. Summons were ordered to the defendants. There are acknowledgements filed by the bank to prove the service of summons. The same is acknowledged by the first defendant on 16/10/2014. It is also seen from the record that on 03/12/2014, one counsel undertook to file vakalatnama for all the defendants. This shows that the first defendant is served and he did not choose to participate/contest. The said advocate had prayed for time on 29/12/2014 and 05/01/2015 to file the vakalatnama which was granted finally by 04/02/2015.
8. On 04/02/2015 the said advocate had withdrawn the undertaking. Therefore the Ld. PO by an order dated 09/03/2015 had placed them exparte.
9. The present applicant- Defendant No. 1 had not pleaded any reason or justifiable cause for his absence before the Tribunal on 04/02/2015, 27/02/2015 and particularly 09/03/2015. In the absence of any reason pleaded, the Tribunal does not see any grounds to set aside the exparte final order and allow the Defendant No. 1 to contest. The only reason is that one Mr.Muruganm mis-represented to him and that he came to know of the final order only on 28/06/2019 cannot be construed as a justifiable cause to set aside the exparte order. Consequently, the MA 62/2019 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(A.S.JAYACHANDRA)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-I, CHENNAI
(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this 18th day of August, 2022)