The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected the petitioners plea to set aside an order dismissing a late representation application. The court found the petitioners excuses regarding date noting incorrect as no hearing was scheduled on that date.
Miscellaneous Application 9/2023 dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Misc. Appl. 9/2023 In A.IR:180/2021
A.Krishna Babu &Ors V/S Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd &Anr
27/09/2023
This application is filed for setting aside order of this Tribunal dated 1.3.2023 and giving opportunity to petitioners/appellants to prosecute IA 663/2021 (Delay in representation) in AIR 180/2021.
Heard both sides and perused the material papers.
As seen from records, IA 663/2021 is an application filed to condone delay in representation of AIR 180/2021 and according to affidavit filed in support of this petition, application to condone delay in representation came up for hearing on 4.12.2022 and due to no sitting of Tribunal, case was reposted to 1.3.2023 and however due to wrong noting of date, counsel for petitioners/appellants was unable to be present on 1.3.2023, therefore, there is no willful default on the part of counsel but only due to above said reasons.
As seen from records, the said statement is not correct. According to proceeding sheet, application for delay in representation has come up got hearing on 29.9.2022 and only on request of advocate for petitioners/appellants, it was posted to 17.11.2022 for hearing. On 17.11.2022, there was no representation for petitioners/appellants, when R1 bank reported ready and the case was posted to 4.1.2023 under the caption of ‘dismissal’. On 4.1.2023, there was no sitting and the case was reposted to 1.3.2023 and on that day, matter was dismissed for default.
The contention of petitioners/appellants that due to wrong noting of date on 4.12.2022 and due to no sitting on that day, the counsel was unable to be present and there was no willful default on the part of petitioners itself is totally wrong and cannot be accepted as there was no posting to 4.12.2022. Further, there were two more hearings prior to 4.1.2023. When there was no hearing on 4.12.2022, contention of petitioners/appellants that date is wrongly noted cannot be accepted.
Considering the above, I am of the considered view, request of the petitioners/appellants for setting aside order of this Tribunal dated 1.3.2023 cannot be accepted and reasons for absence are not convincing, on the contrary, they are incorrect.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application 9/2023 (To set aside) is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Chairperson
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the request to set aside the order dismissing the miscellaneous application for default on the ground of no hearing being noted should be accepted.
A.Krishna Babu &Ors
Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd &Anr
Chairperson
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
