RAVINDER SINGH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) RESPONDENT Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') filed O.A. 482/2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (here in after referred to as 'the DRT') against the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant defendant'), and the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order dated 25.4.2003 against the appellant defendant for the recovery of the amount due to the respondent Bank. The appellant defendant filed the Miscellaneous Application 24/2003 for setting aside the ex parte final order, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT by the impugned order dated 28.10.2003.
(2.) Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal, and the respondent Bank has filed a suitable reply opposing the appeal. The appellant has also filed a rejoinder.
I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant defendant contends that the appellant defendant had engaged the services of the Advocates Mr. D. Hasija and Mr. Avdhesh Tyagi, signed Vakalatnama on 7.12.2000 and handed over the same to them, which was accepted by them and filed in the Tribunal, that the appellant defendant was advised by his Advocates that his personal appearance is not necessary unless specifically directed by the Tribunal, that the said Advocates also undertook to appear before the Tribunal on all the dates and to inform the appellant defendant if and when his personal presence/instructions were required. THE learned Counsel for the appellant defendant also contends that the appellant defendant received in the 2nd week of May, 2003 the copy of the ex parte final order dated 25.4.2003, on receipt of which the appellant defendant engaged the present Counsel, inspected the record, and found about the ex parte final order. THE learned Counsel for the appellant defendant contends that the appellant defendant wrote a letter to the erstwhile Advocates to find out also why they did not appear before the Tribunal on 12.12.2001 and on subsequent dates; but though the Advocates did not reply to the said letter dated 3.6.2003, the appellant defendant was orally informed that on 18.10.2001, the date on which the O.A. was fixed, the learned Presiding Officer did not hold Court and thereafter no Court notice was received about the next date of hearing, namely, 12.12.2001, and that it was in these circumstances the erstwhile Counsel did not appear before the Court on 12.12.2001.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.