RAJESH KUMAR ARORA Vs. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
LAWS(DR)-2003-10-6
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on October 22,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)1st respondent-Bank Slate Bank of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank") filed Original Application 106/2001 against appellants (who are defendants 2 and 1 respectively in the Original Application; and hereinafter referred to as "the appellants-defendants") and three other defendants before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") for the recovery of Rs. 68,59,095/- with interest and costs.
(2.)The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order dated 12.4.2002 against the appellant-defendants.
The appellant-defendants filed Miscellaneous Application 138/2002 on 23.7.2002 to set aside the said final order urging that there was no service on summons on them, that neither the orders setting them ex parte nor the final order was served upon them and, therefore, they have been denied an opportunity to put for their case. The appellant-defendants also urged that Mr. Manoj Munde, the field officer of the respondent-Bank visited the appellant-2nd defendant on 10.7.2002 and informed him of the final order, on which the appellant-2nd defendant moved an application for inspection of the records on 12.7.2002, inspected the records on 15.7.2002 and found that there was nothing in the records to show that there was any service of summons.

(3.)THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the said application observing that records show that the Commissioner appointed by the DRT visited the premises of 1st defendant on 25.4.2001, met the appellant-2nd defendant, prepared the inventory in his presence and even got the signature of appellant-2nd defendant in the report. THE learned Presiding Officer also observed that the Commissioner had served the copies of the orders of the DRT dated 3.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 and the appellant-2nd defendant acknowledged the receipt of the same by appending his signature on the letter dated 25.4.2001 of the Commissioner. THErefore, the learned Presiding Officer held that the appellant-2nd defendant, who is the Director of the appellant-1st defendant (Company), was aware of the orders dated 3.4.2001 and 19.4.2001 passed by the DRT, but still did not take efforts to participate in the proceedings. THE learned Presiding Officer has also observed that ultimately he was also served by the publication in the newspaper "Statesman" dated 23.10.2001 and that the records also show that the copies of the newspaper were also sent to the appellant-defendants 1 and 2 under certificate of posting.


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