STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(DR)-2006-1-8
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 18,2006

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.K.Deb, - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 14.9.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Jabalpur in Review Application No. 5/04, whereby and whereunder the review application filed by the appellant Bank under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to review the order dated 14.1.2004 passed in M.A. No. 114/2001 has been rejected.
(2.) The respondents had filed an application for setting aside ex parte judgment passed in T.A. No. 53/98 dated 16.5.2000 and the said restoration petition filed under Section 22(2)(g) of the DRT Act was allowed by order dated 14.1.2004 mainly on the reference of an order of Hon'ble Single Judge of M.P. High Court in a writ petition No. 6378/2000 (State of M.P. v. DRT and Ors.). The ground of review is that the judgment of M.P. High Court on the basis of which restoration petition namely M.A. No. 114/2001 was allowed has already been challenged before the Division Bench of the M.P. High Court and the same was admitted and was registered as L.P.A. No. 154/2002 and as such the judgment which has been relied on cannot be said to be a final decision of the M.P. High Court, rather by the L.P.A. Court had on merit admitted the appeal and state a further proceeding of the original case pending before the DRT, Jabalpur meaning thereby the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge was stayed virtually by the M.P, High Court. It was further contended that the learned Tribunal in the order dated 14.1.2004 in M.A. No. 114/01 had held that the respondents i.e. applicants in that M.A. could not assign any sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte decree as well as sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In this appeal respondents had not appeared and this is another example which shows apathy of the M.P. State in fighting out the litigation in proper legal Courts at relevant time. The restoration petition was filed after 15 months of the ex parte decree and there was a condonation petition along with the restoration petition.
(3.) THE submission of Mr. Maindiretta, learned Counsel for the appellants is that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the review application in its proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong finding.;


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