RATTAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. CANARA BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-2-12
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 21,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THIS is an appeal against the order dated 8.4.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the ex parte final order passed on 22.10.2001 in O.A. 312/98. Aggrieved, the appellants, who are defendants 4 and 5 in the O.A, have filed this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this appeal.
(2.)I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and perused the records.
The respondent/plaintiff-Bank filed O.A. 312/98 against the appellants (who are defendants 4 and 5) and three others, and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed in his final order that the defendants have been served by publication of the notice in the newspaper 'Statesman', but despite service, the defendants did not appear, and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte. Accordingly, he passed the ex parte final order against the appellants and others for Rs. 66,83,928/- with interest and costs.

(3.)THE 1st defendant is a private limited company, and the appellants are said to be its directors. THE contention of the appellants is that the 1st appellant/4th defendant was a permanent resident of Guwahati (Assam), and had given his address as Fancy Bazar, T.R. Phookan Road, Guwahati (Assam), that he shifted in the year 1991 to Delhi, and had given his address as E/83, Masjid Moth, Delhi, but in the O.A. the address of the 1 st appellant/4th defendant bar, been wrongly given as E-948. Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi. So far as the 2nd appellant/5th defendant is concerned, the contention of the appellants is that he is the resident of Fancy Bazar, T.R. Phookan Road, Guwahati (Assam), but in the O.A his address was mentioned as Fancy Bazar, Guwahati without mentioning the name of the road. THErefore, the contention of the appellants is that the address given in the O.A. for 2nd appellant/5th defendant is incomplete.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.