Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KARUR VYSYA BANK vs MR MUNINARAYANAPPA.M on 28 April 2025
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE
Dated 28th day of April, 2025
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
PRESIDING OFFICER
MA No. 2 of 2025
in
OA No.1892 of 2020
Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, “Bheeja Bhavan” 4th & 5th Floor, Hebbala, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560 024.
Through its Managing Director
… Defendant No.3/Applicant
Vs.
1.
The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd,
Hoskote Branch,
D.No.2560, J.C. Circle,
K.R. Road, Hoskote 562 114.
Through its Branch Head,
Mr M Suresh Kumar
… Applicant/Defendant No.1
2.
Mr Muninarayanappa M,
S/o. Maleyappa,
#46, Thaggali Hosahalli,
Jadigenahalli Post,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Karnataka 562 114.
… Defendant No.1/Defendant No.2
3.
Mr Mahanthesh C,
S/o. H.N. Chandrashekar,
Old Post Office Road, Kumberpet,
Hosakote 562114. Karnataka.
Also at:
No.3, Old Post Office Road,
Kumbarpet, Hosakote,
Karnataka 562 114.
… Defendant No.2/Defendant No.3
Ld. Counsels on record appeared:
For Applicants
:
Shri Jagadeesha B.N.
For Respondent No.1
:
Shri Vignesh Shetty
…….
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
1. This Miscellaneous Application (in short “MA”) has been filed with a prayer to set aside the final order dated 26.2.2024 passed in OA No.1892 of 2020 by which this Tribunal had allowed the application.
2. This Application is preferred by the 3rd defendant in the OA. According to the applicant herein, they were wrongly arrayed as Defendant only for the reason that pledged movables were stored with them. It is also pointed out that, though Written Statement was filed by them on 16.8.2021, this Tribunal by the proceedings dated 5.4.2023 set them ex parte stating that chance for filing written statement of 3rd defendant closed.
3. Hence according to the applicant, this Tribunal had wrongly recorded that no written statement was filed by them and allowed the OA.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in the MA.
5. The applicant’s contention though appeared to be tempting to hold that this Tribunal had committed a mistake in proceeding further recording that no written statement is filed, though actually applicant had filed their written statement as early as on 22.10.2021. It is to be noted that the said mistake in the proceedings happened on 5.4.2023 and admittedly applicant bank’s evidence was taken on 15.2.2024. If at all applicant is really aggrieved, they were having sufficient time and opportunity to point out the mistake as the application is silent as to what transpired between 5.4.2023 and 15.2.2024. Had the applicant herein was diligent enough, they could have brought to the notice of the Tribunal and get the mistake corrected at appropriate time.
6. Another aspect to be noted is that section 22(2) (e) enables this Tribunal to review its orders. The present application is filed under section 22(g) which enables this Tribunal to set aside the order of dismissal of any order passed by it ex parte. From the final order passed by this Tribunal, it is clear that this Tribunal passed the order proceeding ex parte. Since this application is filed u/s.22(g) of the Act to set aside the ex parte final order, this application is found maintainable. Hence post this MA for hearing on 2.5.2025 Sd/- (T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER