MOTIA RANI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein were defendants 5, 2 and 6 respectively in O.A. 836/95 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT). THE O.A. was originally a civil suit before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and was subsequently transferred to the DRT after the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force. THE suit was filed by New Bank of India which has subsequently amalgamated with the respondent-Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Bank').

(2.) On 17.7.1997, the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT passed the final order against the appellants/defendants and others. The appellants/defendants filed an application on 28.8.2000 before the DRT for setting aside the ex parte final order. This application was considered and dismissed by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT holding that the said application was filed beyond the period of limitation, but, there was application for condoning the delay and, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed on that score alone. The learned Presiding Officer also held that even on merits also no grounds have been made out for setting aside the ex parte final order. Aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

(3.) IN this appeal also the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank urged that the application filed before the DRT by the appellants/defendants for setting aside the ex parte final order was barred limitation, and was rightly dismissed on this score also by the learned Presiding Officer of the DRT. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that the appellants/defendants were never served with any notice in O.A., and that they had no knowledge of the proceedings in O.A. 836/95. According to the learned Counsel for appellants/defendants, it was only on 14.5.2000 that the appellant/6th defendant informed the other appellants that a notice from the Recovery Officer (attached to the DRT, Delhi) under Section 25 to 28 of the Act, and the 2nd Schedule to the INcome-tax Act, 1961 had been served upon him (6th defendant), wherein the names of the other appellants had also appeared. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that the appellants immediately instructed their advocate to inspect the records, and that on 28.7.2000 while inspecting Court records, it was revealed that the respondent-Bank had filed the present case against the appellants and others. The learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants further contends that it was thereafter the application to set aside the ex parte final order was filed on 28.8.2000. He, further contends that since the appellants had no notice of the proceedings in the O.A., they had to apply for the inspection of the records relating to this case on 29.5.2000, but the records were made available for inspection only on 28.7.2000, and that thereafter an application was made for getting certified copies of the records on 31.7.2000. He further contends that the certified copies were made available on 14.8.2000 after which the application to set aside the ex parte final order was filed on 28.8.2000. He, therefore, contends that in these circumstances, it cannot be stated that the said application is barred by limitation.