RAVINDRA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) THIS Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants Mr. Ravindra Liladhar Rathi and Mr. Rajendra Liladhar Rathi/legal representatives of the original defendant No. 2 Mr. Liladhar Gopilal Rathi, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2002 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur in Interlocutory Application No. 376/2002 in Original Application No. 161/2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the applicant Bank namely Bank of Maharashtra to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 2 Liladhar Gopilal Rathi.
(2.) Few facts, which are required to be stated, are as follows:
The applicant Bank filed Special Civil Suit No. 573/1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of Rs. 21,56,992-04 ps. The matter got protracted there only without the defendants filing their written statement in the Civil Court. The matter was then transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai and was retransferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, where it was numbered as Original Application No. 161/2001. When the matter was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, the summons sent to defendant No. 2 was returned with endorsement that the defendant No. 2 had expired. Subsequently after inquiry about legal heirs of defendant No. 2, the applicant Bank came up with the application praying that the Bank be permitted to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 2 namely Shri Rajendra Rathi and Mr. Ravi Rathi. It was mentioned that Mr. Rajendra Rathi was already on record as defendant No. 3. However, since it was necessary to also implead Mr. Ravi Rathi to the proceedings and Rajendra Rathi in his capacity and status as legal representative of deceased defendant No. 2 Liladhar Gopilal Rathi, application came to be made by the Bank.
The defendants filed their reply opposing this application on the ground that defendant No. 2 died on 7.8.1999 and the application for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 2 was made in the month of April 2002 and that there was no application for condonation of delay and hence, the application was barred by limitation. It was, therefore, prayed that the application be rejected.
(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur after hearing both the sides and after considering the material placed before him came to the conclusion that as far as proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal were concerned, concept of abatement was not applicable, THE learned Presiding Officer also held that Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act states that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but are guided by the principles of natural justice and that provisions embodied in Order 22 Rule 4(3) of CPC were not applicable to the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He further observed that if these provisions contained in Order 22, Rule 4 of C.P.C. are made applicable to proceedings before these Tribunals then it will be highly detrimental to the claimant Banks and financial institutions. Holding this, the learned Presiding Officer allowed the application made by the Bank. Being aggrieved, the present Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.