KAILASH CHAND NAGPAL Vs. CORPORATION BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-2-2
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 26,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AXIS BANK VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-238] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. HARI SHANKAR SHARMA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-110] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K.S. Kumaran, Chairperson - (1.)APPELLANTS are defendants 2 and 1 in O.A. 174/97 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'). The 1st respondent-plaintiff-Corporation Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank') filed the said O.A. for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 44,19,991/- with interest thereon @ 21.75% per annum against the defendants/appellants and defendants 3 and 4. 2nd appellant is the company, of which the 1st appellant and defendants 3 and 4 are stated to be the Directors. The respondent-Bank also prayed that the 5th defendant should pay a part of this amount. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by his ex parte final order dated 7.12.2000 directed the defendants 1 to 4 to jointly pay the abovesaid sum with interest and costs. The 5th defendant was also saddled with the liability to pay the part of the abovesaid amount.
(2.)Aggrieved, an application for setting aside the ex parte final order was filed. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the said application was also filed later. The applications were opposed by the respondent-Bank.
The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT, by the impugned order dated 3.5.2002, dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte final order observing that he did not wish to delve much regarding the application for condonation of delay as he was of the view that on merits also, the CDs have no case and their application was liable to be dismissed. He found that the defendants were grossly negligent in pursuing the matter (in spite of their being educated persons, and being businessmen) that despite service of the notice on 12.7.1997 they did not participate in the proceedings for more than one year, that they were set ex parte on 10.9.1998, and it was thereafter i.e. on 27.10.1998 that they filed an application to set aside that order, He also observed that even after filing that application, they did not contact their lawyer for about three years, and that they cannot be allowed to succeed in their designs to get the ex parte final order set aside by shifting the whole burden on their lawyer.

(3.)IT is against this order that the 2nd defendant, who is the Director, and the 1st appellant, Which is the company, have preferred this appeal. The respondent-Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. The appellants have filed a rejoinder also.


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