Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
LEKH RAJ and anr vs ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE on 13 October 2026
DEBTS RECO,ITIERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No.490/2019
Arising out of M.A. No.153/2018
In S.A. No.79712017 (DRT-II, Chandigarh)
Item No.11
Sh. Lekh Raj & another
v
Oriental Bank of Commerce
13.10.2426 Hon'ble Dr. Jue tice Sudhir Kumar Jain Present: Sh. Prashant Kumar, Advocate for the a.ppellants through VC
Sh. Prashant Kumar Srivastava, Advocate fbr the respondent through VC
This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
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.
1. Appellanrs filed S,.A. bearing no.79712017 titleci as Lekhraj & another V. Oriental tsank of Commerce u,hich was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. S.A. lrearing no.7972017 got dismissed in default on 29.09.2C18, Thereafter, the appellant filed M.A. bearing ncjfil2Ai8 which was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 21.05.2019. The order dated 21.05.2019 is reproduced as under: This MA has been filed for the restoration of SA No.797ll7 which was dismissed in default on 29.09.2018. Counsel for applicant has stated that he coultl not reach in time in 29.09.2018 that is why the SA was dismissed in default ! I perused.all the order sheets and as per ordgr sheets eo one was present on behqlf of appticant on 22.a9.2018 and )P.09.2018 and on 31.08.2018 some proxy cor:nsel was appg?red and on 13.07,2018 no one was present on behalf of the applicant Since, applicant remained absent on corrtinuous four dates and the counsel for applicant had not given any reasonable explanation to the satisfa:tion of this Tribirnal. Theref'ore, the applicant remained absent on 4 dates deliberately and if such applications are allowed then it will be an abuse to the process of law. Therefore, as per above-mentioned reasons I do not find any reason to allow this SA and accordingly this SA is dismissecl. J, .
-2-
2. Sh. Prashant Kumar, Advocate for the appellants argued that the appellants have deposited Rs.8 lacs in pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2018. This order was passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 1004412018 and said amount be ordered to be refunded to the appellants. However, the said issue is not in consideration of this Tribunal.
3. The perusal of the orders clated 22.09.2018, 29.09.2018 and 3 1 .08.201 8 reflects that no one had appeared for the appellants on22.09.2018 and29.09.2018 and a proxy counsel had appeared forthe appellants on 31.08.2018. On 13.07.2018 also there was no representation on behalf of the. appellants. DRT, due to continuous absence of the appellants for 4 dates, has dismissed the M.A. bearing no.153/2018. There is no reason to interfere in the order which was passed on the actual factual position. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with all pending applications, if any. Hor.vever, the appellant is at liberty to lnitiate appropriate legal proceedings for the refund of Rs.8 lacs stated to have been cleposited pursuance of the order dated 24.04.2018 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 100442018. 3!---:-!:-------- (Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson -pks