Allowed

M S Raja Tyre House v. the Nainital Bank Limited

DRT23 Aug 2022MA/123/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debtts Recovery Tribunal allowed a maintenance application to recall an order dismissing the applicant's stay application. The Tribunal held that despite the order being passed after hearing, it was treated as ex parte because the bank had taken symbolic possession. The application was allowed to condone a date error and restore the stay.

What did the court decide?

The Maintenance Application was allowed; the order dated 13-04-22 was recalled, and the stay application was restored to its original number for arguments pending on another interim application.

M S Raja Tyre House versus the Nainital Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBLNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer

¶3

Date of order 23-08-2022

¶4

M.A.No.123 of 2022

¶5

Present:-

¶6

Counsel for the applicant Mr.S.Updhayay Counsel for the bank Mr.P.K.Shrivastava

¶7

l. Final arguments were heard on 03-08-2022 and case was reserved for pronouncement of orders.

¶8

The applicant has filed the present MA on 17-06-22 praying to recall the order dtd.l3-04-22 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.l 77 of 2022 and, restore the said SA to its original nurnber.

¶9

The case of the applicants, in brief, is that their SA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dtd.13-04-22 without considering the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto writ petition NO.03 of 2021. That applicants have prefered writ petition NO.l3O4l22 before Hon'ble High Court and vide order dtd.30-05 -22 passed by Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow bench, applicants have been directed to file recall application within three weeks. It is stated that due to typographical mistake, date 21-10-21 was wrongly mentioned as 2l-01-22 in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application. That applicant has no intention to conceal the material fact from this Tribunal and local counsel of applicant has obtained the certified copy on2l-10-21. That in preceding paras of affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, applicants have mentioned that enforcement agents of the bank came to their property on 20-lo-21 and applicant has wrongly mentioned the date as 21-0 l-22 instead of 2l-l}-21 .

¶10

4- Bank had filed its objection against the maintainability of the present MA wherein it is stated that the MA is not maintainable uls 22(2)(g) of RDB Act, 1993 as the order dtd.13-04-22 was passed after hearing arguments of both parties and the same is not an exparte order. That mere filing an affidavit narrating that applicant has wrongly mentioned the date of knowledge of the order is not sufficient to supersede the provisions of Sec.22(2)(g) of RDB Act.

¶11

Duly considered submissions and perused the records. The main contention of the applicants is that by mistake date of knowledge has been wrongly mentioned as 2l-10-22 instead of 2l-10-21. Perusal of order dtd. 29-06-21 passed by DM, Bareilly reveals that the same is an exparte order as notice it has been observed to the opposite in party the said in proceeding order that there u/s 14 is no SARFAESI necessity Act. of issuing It is seen any I /)t that bank had taken syrnbolic possession of the property and obtained the

¶12

{

¶13

order u/s 14 SARFAESI Act during covid-I9 pandemic period. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice and in order to hear the matter on merits, the present MA is allowed and the order dtd.l3-0 4-22 passed by this Tribunal in SA No.l 77 122 is recalled.

¶14

Let SA No.l77/22 be restored to its original number and case be listed before this Tribunal on 05-09-22 for arguments on the pending interim application. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of SA No.l77122 also.

¶15

With these directions, the present MA stands finally disposed of.

¶16

File be consigned to record room.

¶17

. Khan) iding Officer

M S Raja Tyre House v. the Nainital Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Raja Tyre House v. the Nainital Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

Shaista Shah versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

M S Godavari Civil Contracting Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)

M S Keep in Touch Clothing Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

M S Shiv Enterprises versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Chand Babu versus Canara Bank

Mohammad Ibrahim versus Aryavart Bank