Dismissed

Mrs a Madhuvanthi Daughter of Y Gee Mahendra v. M/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

DRAT16 Feb 2023MISC APPLICATION/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Chennai) dismissed a Chamber Appeal challenging an order declining registration of an appeal under Rule 6(4) of the 1994 Procedure Rules. The Registrar had rejected the appeal non-compliance of office objections. While counsel claimed 99% rectification was done by the date of the hearing, record scrutiny revealed significant defects remained unaddressed, and sufficient adjournments for compliance had been previously granted and utilized.

What did the court decide?

Chamber Appeal No.1/2023 is dismissed; the order dated 09.11.2022 declining registration is upheld as there was no illegality in the Registrar's disposal.

Mrs a Madhuvanthi Daughter of Y Gee Mahendra versus… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 16^th of February, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶4

Chamber Appeal No. 1/2023

¶5

¶6

AIR (SA) 263/2022 [Order dated 9.11.2022 of Registrar, DRAT, Chennai]

¶7

Between

¶8

Mrs. Madhuvanthi, D/o Y. Gee Mahendra, H-13, “ Asiana”, Venus Colony, 2^nd Cross Street, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018,

¶9

Jains Windsor Court, Flat No. B3, No.22, New Giri Road, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶10

Mr. Y. Gee Mahendra,(Co Borrower), S/o Y. Gee Parthasarathy, Old No.22, New No.4, Sarada Nagar, Virugambakka, Chennai – 600 32.

¶11

……Appellants

¶12

And

¶13

The Authorsed Officer, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guidny, Chennai – 600 032.

¶14

….. Respondent

¶15

Counsel for Appellants : Mr. Thanu Madhan N. S.

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Chamber Appeal is filed challenging Order dated 09.11.2022 of Registrar, on which date, the Appeal is declined in terms of Rule 6 (4) of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1994), challenging that, present Appeal is filed.

¶19

Heard Learned Counsel for Appellants.

¶20

Advocate for Appellants, in the beginning itself submitted, out of all objections raised by Registry on 02.09.2022, 99 per cent of them were rectified, only one per cent of it was left out. He submitted, on 09.11.2022, when he wanted to comply that objection also, unfortunately by the time he reached Registrar Court, decline Order is already passed, therefore, some indulgence may be shown, and an opportunity may be given,

¶21

¶22

and that, Appellants are ready to comply with remaining objection today itself.

¶23

This Tribunal requested Learned Advocate for Appellants to show the date on which 99 per cent of objections raised by Registry are rectified. Advocate for Appellants was not in a position to answer that in spite of verifying Office records.

¶24

He submitted Office put Pencil marking for the rectified defects and only 3 or 4 objections are left over. As seen from Office records, 13 objections are raised by Registry, on 02.09.2022, only four objections i.e. objection No.2, objection No.5, objection No.7 and objection No.8 are alone have Pencil marks, and remaining objections are left over, therefore, submission of Learned Advocate for Appellant is totally incorrect.

¶25

As seen from records, ample opportunity was given to Appellants for removing the objections. On 23.09.2022,

¶26

¶27

Counsel for Appellants sought time for compliance of objections, and it was adjourned to 20.10.2022. It was again adjourned to 26.10.2022, and on 26.10.2022, there was no representation for Appellants and Office Objections are not complied with, in spite of that Registrar accommodated and posted the matter to 09.11.2022 for compliance. On 09.11.2022, representing Counsel for Appellants was present, and as Office Objections were not complied with, Registrar passed Order declining to register the Appeal Memorandum in term of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of Rules, 1994.

¶28

So, from the record, submission of Counsel for Appellants that by the time he reached, decline Order is passed, is not correct, because on 09.11.2022, there was representation for Appellants, and if their real intention was to comply with Office Objections on 09.11.2022, a request for pass over should have been made, but, no such request is made, on the other hand, Office Objections are not complied with.

¶29

¶30

On a scrutiny of material, all the grounds urged in the Appeal are not convincing and there is no illegality in the Order dated 09.11.2022. As Appellants have not shown any interest in rectifying the defects in spite of granting nearly two months time, I am of the view that Registrar is perfectly justified in declining to register the Appeal and there are no grounds to interfere.

¶31

For these reasons, Chamber Appeal No.1/2023 is dismissed.

¶32

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 16^th of February, 2023]

¶33

Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar]

¶34

CHAIRPERSON

¶35

Mrs a Madhuvanthi Daughter of Y Gee Mahendra v. M/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs a Madhuvanthi Daughter of Y Gee Mahendra v. M/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri K v Jayaprakash

Mr K Saravanan versus South Indian Bank

P.Kameswari versus State Bank of India & Ors.

Nizar Ahmed Ts versus Hdb Financial Service Ltd.

Mrs a Madhuvanthi Daughter of Y Gee Mahendra versus M/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

Kiran Jose versus South Indian Bank