Dismissed

Ms Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT16 Dec 2022MA/30/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh dismissed an application seeking to recall an order dismissing a special appeal in default. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance due to the absence of an affidavit from the earlier counsel.

What did the court decide?

The application for recalling the order of dismissal in default was dismissed.

Ms Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA No.30/2022

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

MA No.30/2022 In SA No.145/2022 M/s Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IOB

¶4

16.12.2022

¶5

Item No.21

¶6

Present: Sh.Ishtneet Bhatia, Counsel for the MA applicant/defendant. Sh.RV Mehra, Counsel for respondent bank.

¶7

M/s Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. (Applicant) has filed this application for recalling order dated 14.09.2022, passed by this Tribunal, whereby SA No.145/2022 filed by it was dismissed in default, against Indian Overseas Bank and others (Respondents).

¶8

Earlier, applicant had filed SA No.145/2022, which was dismissed in default on 14.09.2022 as nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant. On 14.10.2022, applicant filed the impugned application for restoration of the same. In the impugned application, it has been alleged that applicant intended to change his counsel and as such he had requested his previous counsel to request for an adjournment on the last date of hearing i.e. 14.09.2022 but unfortunately he (Applicant’s counsel) did not appear on the said date in the court. This being so, the case was dismissed in default. There was no intention or willful default on the part of the applicant for non-appearance before this Tribunal on 14.09.2022. Further, huge money is involved and the same is to be recovered from the applicant and in case order dated 14.09.2022 is not recalled, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss.

¶9

In reply, bank has alleged that the application is not maintainable. It is neither signed by the applicant nor by the advocate who was the counsel of the applicant at the time when the SA was dismissed in default on 14.09.2022. The application has been signed by Sh. Ishtneet Singh Bhatia who was not

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

MA No.30/2022

¶12

counsel on 14.09.2022. It is also stated that a cooked up story has been put-forth to cover up the default committed on 14.09.2022. The truth of the matter is that the applicant and its directors through whom the SA had been filed utterly negligent and they knew that they had filed a meritless case. Accordingly, they had deliberately and knowingly got the same dismissed. Thereafter, applicant filed CWP No.26994 of 2022 in the Hon’ble High Court, which was dismissed on 24.11.2022. No good and sufficient reason has been mentioned in the present application for restoration of the SA. Accordingly, the application be dismissed.

¶13

Mr.Ishtneet Singh Bhatia, counsel for the applicant, in his arguments, has reiterated the facts mentioned in the application. He further argued that application was filed within time. Accordingly, the same be allowed.

¶14

Per contra , Mr.RV Mehra, counsel for respondent bank submitted that affidavit of the earlier counsel who was representing the applicant has not been filed. Applicant had deliberately not appeared before the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Tribunal had no option except to dismiss the same and there is no merit in the present application and the same be dismissed.

¶15

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶16

Though, this Tribunal is liberal in allowing the application for restoration of the case dismissed in default, yet, this deserves to be mentioned that the applicant has failed to show some sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing i.e 14.09.2022 when the SA was dismissed in default. Applicant in the impugned application has alleged that he had instructed his earlier counsel Shri NS Swaitch to put in appearance. However, Shri NS Swaitch did not put in appearance. No affidavit of Shri NS Swaitch has been filed by the applicant.

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

MA No.30/2022

¶19

I am of the considered view that applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for recalling the order dated 14.09.2022. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed.

¶20

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶21

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer Pronounced in open court. DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶22

Manoj 16.12.2022

¶23

Page 3 of 3

Ms Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kesri Impex Pvt. Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supreme Bed House versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Vijaykumar R Bhakhaswala and Ors. versus Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Mrs Sheela So Sunil Laxmanrao Kurrewar versus Home First Finance Company

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Vaishali Enterprises and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Swastika Agencies and others

Indian Overseas Bank versus K Gurunadham