GOPAL KRISHAN BHASIN Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA
LAWS(DR)-2005-1-9
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 07,2005

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

, - (1.) THE matter has been taken up on board today in pursuance of direction passed by Hon'ble Chairperson, DRAT where Hon'ble Chairperson was pleased to transfer the Appeal filed by the appellant vide Dy No. 4780/04 in DRT-I, Delhi on 27.12.2004 for consideration of its admissibility by me in view of the fact that owning to the absence of Hon'ble ,, DRT-I, Delhi somehow the matter remained unattended and the proposed auction of the property involved herein is slated to be taken up on 10.1.2005 by the respondent Bank.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant in view of the aforesaid circumstances of nonavailability of Hon'ble ,, DRT-I and pendency of the said matter before DRT-I preferred an application before Hon'ble Chairperson, DRAT today to apprise him of the exigency of the circumstances and urgency of early hearing in the matter to stave off the auctioning of the property by the respondent Bank on 10.1.2005 as proposed. Hon'ble the Chairperson was thus pleased to appreciate the circumstances and was pleased to order this Tribunal to hear the matter on the point of admissibility thereof and after hearing learned Counsel for the appellant on the merit of the admissibility, the matter has been ordered to be transferred back to the original jurisdiction of DRT-I vide Hon'ble DRAT's order passed in MA No. 1/2005 dated 7.1.2005. In pursuance of aforesaid order of Hon'ble Chairperson, DRAT this matter was ordered to be listed before me for hearing at this hour of the day i.e. 4.30 p.m. as a case of urgent nature.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the instant case the respondent Bank had not taken care to property adhere to the provisions of Securitisation Act and did not care to see the notice, if any, sought to be served on appellant, was issued at correct address or not as would be evident by a bare perusal of the notice annexed as Annexure-A(15) with the appeal at Page 115. It clearly shows that the notice was issued to Shri Gopal Krishan Bhasin, House No. 30, Sector-39, Noida, UP 2001301 whereas the correct address of the appellant as made available to the respondent Bank by documents as also made known to the respondent Bank through a plethora of correspondence exchange between the parties to be House No. 30, Block-H, Sector-39, Noida, Distt. Gauttam Budha Nagar, UP. But intentionally or inadvertently the mention of Block-H was omitted in the address where the notice was allegedly sent to the appellant as is born out from a bare perusal of the notice at page 115 of the Appeal at hand.;


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