The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to set aside a final order on the grounds of the petitioners' absence at the hearing. The Court held that no new facts were raised, contentions were already in the written statement, and the remedy lies in appeal.
The MA application is dismissed with costs of Rs.2500 payable to TANKERs Foundation.
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.
MA No.71/22 in OA 170/2016
18.11.2022
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K Presiding Officer
MA No.71/2022 in DRC No.255/2021 in OA No.170/2016
1. M/s.Rajarajan Motors
Pondicherry Main Road, Alpet Manjakuppam
Cudddalore – 607 001 (Business Closed)
Also at:
M/s.Rajarajan Motors No.88-90, Sithananda Nagar Villupuram Main Road Pondicherry – 605 005 (Business Closed)
2. Mr.K.Rajarajan
No.59, 11th Cross, Anna Nagar Pondicherry – 605 005
Now at: Mr.K.Rajarajan 92-93, Vinayagar Street, Dr.MGR Nagar Mudaliarpet Pondicherry – 605 004 ….Petitioners
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd
Rep. by its Territory Manager No.1, Cenotoph road Teyanampet Chennai – 600 018 ....Respondent/Applicant Bank
Counsel for Petitioners : M/s.P.V.Ramachandran Counsel for Applicant Bank : M/s.S.Parthasarathy
MA No.71/22 in OA 170/2016
2
18.11.2022
ORDER
MA No.71/22 in OA 170/2016
3
18.11.2022
hold that defendants are not liable for any payments, much less the OA claim. While contrary to the same, the OA was allowed for the principal amount due only. Ld.Counsel further submits that considering the contention there upon, by defendants, no subsequent interest was awarded and only the outstanding amount due was granted as amount recoverable. Apparently neither parties preferred any appeal against the said order.
MA No.71/22 in OA 170/2016
18.11.2022
4
his case basing on the findings and observations of the court and therefore assumes that the OA ought to have been dismissed by discharging defendants from the liability of OA claim. However, on further enquiry by this Tribunal about the intention of defendants for discharge of the debt, Ld.Counsel admitted their acceptance of the order and submitted that it is not their intention to countenance the order passed by this Tribunal, but it is only their endeavour to record about their absence on the date of passing of the order and that about their present contention of making submissions before the court. Since, Ld.Counsel for defendants did not urge any other fact or any point of law contrary to what is already provided in their written submissions, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the present application and that the same is liable to be dismissed. Since, Ld.Counsel had insisted that the petitioners are not contending upon contents of the order, but wanted to improve their submissions basing on the findings of this Tribunal which are all issues that can be raised only in an appeal, the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2500/payable to TANKERs Foundation.
MA No.71/22 in OA 170/2016
18.11.2022
5
(Dictated to Stenographer (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of November, 2022)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside a final order dated 25.02.2021 on the ground that the petitioners were absent on the date of its passing.
Whether the Tribunal could improvise its case by relying on findings in its own order instead of an appeal.
Whether the application amounts to an abuse of process of law.
M/s.Rajarajan Motors and Mr.K.Rajarajan
ICICI Bank Ltd
GANAPATHI K.R.K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
