METRO POLYMERS Vs. INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
K.S. Kumaran, (J.) Chairperson -
(1.) 1 This appeal has been filed by the defendants in O.A. 472/97 (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-defendants") against the impugned order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the DRT") dismissing the application filed by the appellant-defendants to set aside the ex parte final order passed against them on 24.3.1998 in O.A. 472/97.
(2.) The respondent-Indian Renewable Energy Development agency Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed the O.A. before the DRT for the recovery of Rs. 24,86,977 with interest and costs. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the ex parte final order on 24.3.1998 accordingly.
On 30.11.1998 application to set aside the ex parte final order was filed on behalf of the appellant-defendants. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides dismissed the said application by his order dated 28.4.2000. The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT observed that notices and summons were issued, and on 10.12.1997 postal receipts were filed by the Counsel for the respondent. He also observed that the learned Counsel for the respondent requested for service on appellant-defendants by way of publication, that, after satisfaction, the request of the respondent was allowed and it was ordered that the appellant-defendants be served by publication in the newspaper "Statesman". The learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that in spite of publication in the newspaper "Statesman" dated 29.12.1997, the appellant-defendants failed to appear and, therefore, were proceeded ex parte.
(3.) THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT also observed that the acknowledgement for service or the unserved envelopes had not returned in this O. A. and, therefore, there was presumption of service of summons on the appellant-defendants. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT held that no written application or even an affidavit that the appellant-defendants were evading service was required for directing substituted service since the Tribunal is not bound to observe the procedure prescribed by the provisions of the CPC, but is guided by the principles of natural justice. THE learned Presiding Officer of the DRT further observed that the appellant-defendants had not even given the date when they came to know about the proceedings in the O.A. and, therefore, the application filed for the purpose of setting aside the, ex parte final order is also barred by time. Observing that the appellant-defendants have failed to show any good and sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte final order and that the application is also barred by limitation, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT dismissed the application.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.