Dismissed

Ashok Wood Works v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT18 Sept 2025MISC APPEAL/16/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellants' appeal seeking restoration of an arbitration application dismissed for default in 2007. The Tribunal upheld the lower court's dismissal of the restoration application due to a six-year delay without justifiable reasons, rejecting the claim that clerical errors in the diary constituted a bar.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the order dismissing IA 93/2014 was dismissed with a direction to parties to bear their own costs.

Ashok Wood Works versus Indian Overseas Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 18^th of September 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 16/2021

¶6

(Arising out of IA No. 93/2014 in IA 30/2007 in TA 688/2007 on the file of the DRT, Madurai)

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s. Ashok Wood Works, a Partnership firm Rep. by its Partners, Mohan N. Patel,

¶9

Door No.46/4A Bye Pass Road,

¶10

Ariyamangalam, Trichy 620 010.

¶11

M/s. Ashok Saw Mill, a Partnership firm, Rep. by its Partners, Harish N. Patel, Door No.14, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Tiruverumbur, Trichy 620 010 … Appellants

¶12

And

¶13

Indian Overseas Bank, Trichy Main Branch, 144 West Bouleward Road, Trichy, Trichy District, Rep. by its Chief Manager . …Respondents Counsel for Appellants : Mr. A. Periyasamy

¶14

¶15

Counsel for Respondent : Mr. F.B. Benjamin George

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 93/2014 in IA 30/2007 in TA 688/2007 on the file of the DRT, Madurai.

¶18

IA 93/2014 was filed under Section 19 (25) of RDDBFI Act to restore IA 30/2007, which was dismissed for non prosecution on 13/12/2007. The prayer made in IA 30/2007 was to claim a sum of Rs.1,71,00,000/- by way of set off against the respondent/Bank. The appellants were set exparte in the main OA on 26/09/2007 and it was subsequently set aside. The dismissal of IA 30/2007 was wrongly entered in the ‘A’ dairy as IA 30/2005. In the said circumstances, the aforesaid application was filed.

¶19

The Bank opposes the appeal on the ground that IA 30/2007 was dismissed for default in the year 2007 and the application to restore the IA 30/2007 was filed after lapse of six years. The appellants cannot take advantage of mistake in the

¶20

¶21

proceedings. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, on going through the records, found that IA 30/2007 was wrongly entered in the ‘A’ Diary as IA 30/2005. That apart, the application to restore IA 30/2007 in IA No. 93/2014 was filed after six years without assigning any valid, convincing and justifiable reasons for the delay of six years in filing the restoration application. In this view of the matter, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, dismissed the IA 93/2014.

¶22

4.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the right to set off is available to the appellants. The application in IA 30/2007 to claim set off was dismissed and the ‘A’ diary proceedings wrongly mentioned as IA 30/2005 instead of IA 30/2007 and therefore, the appellant would not aware of the dismissal of the IA 30/2007 and this, contributed the delay. The appellants have to be given an opportunity to make the plea of set off.

¶23

There is no representation for the learned counsel

¶24

for respondent/Bank. This appeal is pending from the year 2021. The issue involved in this appeal is not a serious issue and therefore, this Tribunal decided to dispose the appeal.

¶25

¶26

It is seen from the order of the learned Presiding

¶27

Officer, DRT, Maqdurai, that the application filed to set aside the order passed in IA 30/2007 was filed after lapse of six years without assigning any reason and that was the main reason for the dismissal of the IA 93/2014. Here also, there is no justifiable reason given for the enormous delay in filing the restoration application. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that there is no need to take a different view of the matter than that was taken by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, and thus the order passed by the learned Presiding officer, DRT, Madurai in IA 93/2014 is confirmed. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

¶28

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

¶29

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.

¶30

Pending IAs if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

[Dictated in the open Court to Steno (RA), transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me, this 18^th day of September, 2025]

¶32

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶33

Ashok Wood Works v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Wood Works v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Varalakshmi versus Indian Bank

Jaffer Ali versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Cadyche Automation and Office Solution Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Inbaraj versus Indian Bank

Ashok Wood Works versus Indian Overseas Bank

Johny Mathew versus Hdfc Bank