ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. CHANDRAKALA GAUTAM JAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/original opponent No. 2, ICICI Bank Ltd. has filed revision petition bearing No. 128/13 to challenge the order dated 22/04/2010 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District in Consumer Complaint No. 768/2009. However, there is a delay of 1268 day in filing revision petition from the date of order. Hence, the applicant has filed application for condonation of delay. According to the applicant, loan of Rs. 13 lacs was granted to the husband of the respondent No. 1 on 28/11/2007 as a Home Loan. Respondent No. 1 was the co -applicant to the loan. Respondent No. 1 started defaulting on the payment of periodic EMIs. On 01/07/2009, account of the respondent No. 1 was declared as Non Performing Asset as per SARFESI Act. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent No. 1. Notice was not complied. Public Notice was also not complied. In the month of June 2013, the applicant seeking to enforce their security interest under the provisions of the SARFESI Act conducted inspection of the property which was mortgaged against the Home Loan. At that time, it was orally informed by the respondent No. 1 that status -quo order was passed by the District forum on 25/05/2010 in a stay application filed in consumer complaint No. 786/09. The applicant assigned the matter to its advocate who took inspection of the complaint proceedings in August 2013. At that time, it was transpired that consumer complaint No. 768/09 proceeded ex -parte against the applicant vide order dated 22/04/2010. Summons -notice was not properly served on the applicant. The last notice received on 22/01/2010 does not bear signature of any authorized official from the applicant. The applicant bank has never received notice from the District Forum. Applicant has been regularly attended the matter before the District Forum. On merit, application has strong case. Hence, in the interest of justice, delay may be condoned; otherwise the applicant will suffer irreparable injury. The delay can be compensated in terms of money.

(2.) Respondent No. 1/original complainant opposed the application by filing detailed say. Application is proceeded ex -parte against the respondent No. 2.

(3.) Heard learned counsel Mrs. Aparajita Chandra for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. Bhaskar Yogi for the respondent No. 1.