RAM PRAKASH Vs. BANK OF BARODA
LAWS(DR)-2003-7-9
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 22,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)FIRST respondent-Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed O. A. 410/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT') against (1) M/s. Design Shoppe, (2) Mr. Chandan Roy (proprietor of No. 1), and (3) Ram Prakash (appellant herein). There learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned final order dated 4.3.1999 directed the defendants to pay Rs. 40,16,733.99 with interest and costs. He also directed the sale of the mortgaged property.
(2.)Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the appeal and also this application for. condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing this application.
I have heard the Counsels for both the sides, and persued the records.

(3.)THE impugned final order was passed on 4.3.1999, but the appeal against the same has been presented on 18.7.2002, i.e., more than three years after the final order. According to the appellant, the copy of the final order was received by the appellant only on 6.12.1999. But the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the copy of the impugned order shows that there was none present on behalf of the parties and, therefore, the appellant taking the same to be an ex parte final order filed an application on 10.1.2000 under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the said order. He points out that the said application was disposed of on 1.6.2001, but the copy of the said order was not communicated to the appellant. THE learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant came to know on 16.4.2002 from his tenant that there was a publication in the newspaper 'Hindustan Times' of the auction notice. He further contends that the appellant filed an appeal on 9.5.2002 against the above said order dated 1.6.2001 dismissing the application filed under Order IX Rule 13. CPC, but the same was rejected. He contends that the appellant thereafter filed an application on 17.5.2002 for review of the final order dated 4.3.1999, but the said application for review was also rejected on 2.7.2002.


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