Decided on May 08,2014

Kunj Behari Hada Appellant
Punjab National Bank and Ors. Respondents


Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson) - (1.) THIS case has a long chequered history. In the present appeal, the appellant has impugned an order dated 30.12.2010 whereby there application seeking review of the order passed on 19.6.2009 and of the final order dated 6.12.2007 passed in T.A. No. 551/2000 in O.A. No. 513/2000 has been rejected. By its order dated 6.12.2007, the Tribunal below had allowed the O.A./T.A. No. 551/2000 ex -parte for recovery of Rs. 65,25,677/ - together with pendente lite and future interest as well as cost. The appellant having come to know about the ex parte final order, first filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC read with Section 22(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (for short RDDBFI Act) for setting aside the ex parte final order passed on 6.12.2007.
(2.) THE Bank contested the said application. The Tribunal, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the miscellaneous application on merit on 19.6.2009. The appellant then filed a composite application seeking review of both the orders dated 6.12.2007 and 19.6.2009. The plea was that the appellant is alleged to have executed the loan document on 16.1.1993 and thus the O.A. filed by the appellant was beyond the period of limitation. Additional plea raised was that the company in question was declared 'sick' within the meaning of Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, SICA) in the year 1988. As per the appellant BIFR had made efforts for its rehabilitation, but finally recommended winding up of the company in the year 1999. The winding -up order was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Delhi and provisional order of winding up was passed on 23.5.2001. The Bank statedly had filed the O.A. on 21.9.2000 alleging that the company had defaulted in the repayment of the loan. The O.A. was for recovery of the loan amount. The appellant would claim that he did not receive any summons as he had resigned from the company and ceased to be its director on 25.7.1997. The appellant would also contend that the Bank was well -informed about its resignation and of his new address, but, still no steps were taken to serve the appellant in the O.A.
(3.) AS per his own showing, the appellant then filed a miscellaneous application disclosing the cause of his non -appearance. The plea was that the O.A. filed by the Bank was hopelessly time -barred as is evident from the record itself, but still the Presiding Officer failed to notice this aspect while passing ex parte decree on 6.12.2007 against the appellant as well. To show that the O.A. was time -barred, the appellant states that the last documentation relied upon by the Bank qua the appellant was apparently executed on 16.1.1993 and the last confirmation statedly executed was on 10.1.1995. Thereafter, there had been no such confirmation and even no such plea had been made in the O.A. Since the O.A. was filed in September, 2000, it was urged that this was much beyond the period of limitation. The appellant would thus plead that the suit was hopelessly time -barred against the appellant.;

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