SAWARIA AGARWAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.K. Gupta, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.) LEARNED Counsel for both the parties are heard. This is an Appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, by which the judgment passed by the D.R.T. on 28th July, 2011, has been challenged. By this order the application submitted by the appellant alleging fraud to set aside the judgment and decree dated 11th October, 2002, which was passed in O.A. No. 106/2002 has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that the appellants came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree in the month of January, 2009 (Para 13 of the application before the D.R.T.). Thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree was moved on 8th September, 2010.
(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal an objection on behalf of the Bank was raised that Smt. Uma Gupta, who was also one of the applicants in the M.A. No. 75/2010 has already lodged an objection before the Recovery Officer on 15th January, 2010 and also 2 -3 years earlier to the said date an objection was lodged by her. On the basis of the same, it is apparent that so far as Smt. Uma Gupta is concerned, she was already aware about 2 -3 years back from 15th January, 2010 that an ex parte judgment and recovery certificate has been directed to be issued by the Tribunal by its order dated 11th October, 2002. It was passed in the Original Application No. 106/2002. The appellant, has not explained any delay. According to them, they were aware of the ex parte judgment and decree in the month of January, 2009 and what was the reason for delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on 8th September, 2010. No application for condonation of delay was even moved by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte judgment and Recovery Certificate dated 11th October, 2002 before the D.R.T.
(3.) BEFORE the D.R.T., the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V.D. Chauhan very fairly submitted that application was moved for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree by alleging fraud against Shree Gopal Oil Mills (P) Ltd., who was the borrower. The mortgagor was Shree Vishnu Agarwal, who was arrayed as defendant No. 2 and it was the submission of the appellant before the D.R.T. in M.A. No. 75/2010 that since fraud was practised by Mr. Vishnu Agarwal in connivance of the officers of the Bank, therefore, the judgment and issuance of recovery certificate by an order dated 11th October, 2002 was bad in law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.