Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Vijendran vs CANARA BANK on 5 September 2022
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI
Dated this 5th Day of September, 2022
PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA
Presiding Officer
MA No.10 of 2022
In
Unnumbered MA (Dy.No.186/2022)
In
OA No.339/2019
Mr.D.Vijendran,
S/o Mr.A.Dhanapathy,
Door No.216, Middle Street,
Periyakattupalayam, Keezhiuppu Post,
Kadampuliyur Viz. Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District 607103.
. . . Applicant
Versus
Canara Bank,
Neyveli Main, Block 6,
Neyveli, Cuddalore District.
Tamilnadu – 607803.
. . . Defendant
Applicant by None.
Respondent by Mr. K.N. Chinnakrishnan, Adv.
It is seen from the record that a Miscellaneous application is filed for setting aside the exparte order dated 31.12.2019 passed in OA/339/2019. The same is not numbered because of delay in filing the same.
The said application is accompanied by an application filed on 28.02.2022. The same is numbered as MA/10/2022. The prayer in MA/10/2022 is to condone the delay of 785 days in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order passed in OA.
The applicant did not appear on the last date. However, the ld counsel for the bank was present on 20.06.2022. On that day this Tribunal kept this matter for today for the final appearance of the applicant. But today none appears.
Considering the pendency of the matter the same is taken up for disposal on merits.
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 - :
The aspect of condoning the delay is a matter of discretion based on merits and law. The delay is to be condoned if sufficient cause is shown and if there are merits. Hence the same is perused.
The application is accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by one D. Vijendran. According to him he was not served with notice and placed exparte on 31.12.2019 in OA. A recovery certificate was also issued consequent to the exparte order dated 31.12.2019.
He submits that he came to know about the exparte order only during April, 2021 when the bank informed him about the recovery certificate and the demand notice. He also submits that he could not contact the bank due to COVID 19. Afterward’s he approached the bank on 10.11.2021 and requested one time settlement offering Rs. 20
lakhs and agreed to pay on or before 15.11.2021. It is his case that for the above reasons, there occurred delay. If the delay is not condoned he would be put to hardship.
The above contentions are to be looked for veracity through record. The record shows that on 21.08.2019, the ld Predecessor had noted that the defendant in OA/339/2019 was duly served as noted in the order sheet dated 01.08.2019. He was served through RPAD and the cards are also filed.
The contention of the applicant –defendant is that he was not served the notices in the OA. The original record is summoned and perused. It shows that the defendant was served with notice and the RPAD card is on record. The same is filed alongwith an affidavit of service dated 01.08.2019. After perusal of the AD card and the postal receipt and after careful perusal of the addresses mentioned in the OA and the AD card, it is clear that this applicant in MA/10/2022 was duly served in the original proceedings.
The only ground urged for condonation of delay is that he was not served and he came to know about the proceedings only after the recovery certificate was issued in the second week of April 2021 cannot be believed since the record belies his averments.
There are no other grounds urged for condoning the delay. It is also seen from the record that the bank had issued the warning notices as early as 31.08.2018 before filing of the OA. It was obligatory on the part of the defendant in OA to have properly followed up after receipt of such notice and especially after the notices having been issued by this Tribunal which is noted above.
Suffice to say that the applicant has not made out any ground for condonation of delay. No sufficient or justifiable reasons are forthcoming to condone the delay. Even the unnumbered application for setting aside the exparte order is also a replica of the averments in the application for condoning the delay. Except saying that he has got fair chances of success in OA, no other grounds disclosing the defence to contest the OA are raised, to show merits.
After careful perusal of the grounds for condoning the delay, this Tribunal is not persuaded to find merits in the application for condoning the delay. In the circumstances the same fails and the MA No.10/2022 stands dismissed. Consequently the unnumbered application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 also 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 5TH day of September, 2022)