RAJPAL SOLANKI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
Pratibha Upasani, -
(1.) JUSTICE Dr. Pratibha Upasani Chairperson--This Misc. appeal is filed by the appellants/original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur on Misc. Application No. 100 of 2003 in Original Application No. 396 of 2001. By the impugned order, the learned Presiding Officer dismissed the application made by the appellants/ original defendant Nos. 4 and 5 Mr. Rajpal Solanki and Mr. Jetinder Singh to condone the delay of 162 days in filing an application for review of the final orders dated 27.9.2002 passed in the Original Application No. 396 of 2001.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Dhall for the appellants and Mr. Deepak Thakkar for the respondent No. 1 Bank I have gone through the proceedings including the impugned order and in my opinion, the learned Presiding Officer has not committed any error.
It appears that the applicant Central Bank of India had filed the original application against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,50,75,504-84 paise and for enforcement of their securities. Pursuant to the summons published in the newspaper, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 present appellants appeared before the Tribunal through their lawyer. However, no written statement was filed by them. Ultimately, the original application proceeded ex parte against them and in favour of the applicant Bank on 27.9.2002. They, however, approached the Tribunal after substantial period of 147 days. The learned Presiding Officer, however, was not satisfied by the cause shown by the appellants and did not condone the delay. Being aggrieved the present misc. appeal is sought to be filed against the order of dismissal of the said application.
(3.) FROM the proceedings, it is revealed that there is delay in filing the present appeal also. Delay is of 115 days. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay, which states that the appellants received copy of the impugned order dated 26.4.2004 on 2.6.2004. But the appellant No. 1 Rajpal Solanki came to know about the impugned order in the third week of June 2004. It is further stated that however, even at that time, he was advised by the doctor complete bed rest and therefore was unable to move and contract his Counsel. It is stated that the delay was for the reasons beyond his control. It is further stated that the appellants have a very strong case on merits and therefore, the delay be condoned.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.