Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking condonation of a 1721-day delay to set aside an ex-parte final order. The Tribunal held that pending_Out of Settlement negotiations did not constitute sufficient cause for such inordinate delay.
Application for condonation of delay in filing set-aside petition dismissed.
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 DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THEgTH DAY OF SEPETMBER,2022
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
IA.No.129/2022
IN oA.No.30/2U^17
Petitioners/ Defendants 1 & 2.
Versus
Respondent/ Applicant.
Respondents/ Defendants 3 to 6.
are not necessary
tA.No.129/2022
Si V. DhannasurL
Counsel for Respondent No.1 :
Sri V. SetLumadhaua Rao.
.:ORDER:-
3
tA.No.129/2022
an application to set-aside the ex-parte final order
dt.25.O5.2O17, passed in the OA?
ii) To what relief2
Polnt No.lilt
- It is not the case of the Petitioner/ Defendant No. 1 that it has not
received the summons in the OA. But, according to the version of Petitioners, even though Petitioner/ Defendant No.1 received the summons, as Petitioners/ Defendants were pursuing the matter with l"t Respondent-Bank for settlement of the dues under OTS, the Petitioners/ Defendants No.1 & 2 did not purse the OA proceedings. The Petitioner/Defendant No.2 is none other than the Partner of Petitioner/ Defendant No. 1 . So, after receiving the summons the Petitioners herein have not taken any steps for defending their case in the OA and they kept quiet without attending the Tribunal so, they were set ex-parte and the ex-parte final order in the OA was passed on 25.O5.2OL7. No material is placed by the Petitioners herein for establishing that there is any correspondence between the petitioners and lst Respondent-Bank at relevant time for finalisation of OTS. Even if any OTS proposal is pending at relevant time, same cannot be a ground for the Petitioners herein to contend that they have not pursued the OA proceedings under the impression that the OTS will be tinalised. After passing ex-parte decree, the lst Respondent Bank may not be having any interest in pursuing the OTS, if any. So, the version of the Petitioners herein that they waited for all these years without pursuing the OA proceedings under the impression that the
with the 1st Respondent Bank will be finalised, cannot /,4re2?"* e..IFp.ro. condoning the inordinate detay of l72odays. So, lP. ^ S- .'tr - the Petltfoners haVe not established any reasonable or suflicient cause an fofl SS[p9SZF thJ inordinate delay of L72o days in fiting de the ex-parte order dt.25.O5.2017. There are no and same is liable to be dismissed.
tA.No.129/2022
Polnt No.llil:-
(Dictdted. to the Priuate ser,etdry, transcribed. ba hin, currected, sbled. dnd prcnoun@d bg ne in the open @)rt otu thisthe 9 dag of September, 2O22).
sd/-
(G. coPrcHAND) Presiding Officer
TRUE CUPY ^ffiiw^M
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause existed to condone a delay of 1721 days in filing a set-aside petition.
Whether bona fide belief in ongoing settlement negotiations under OTS constitutes a reasonable cause for inordinate delay.
Whether the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Sri Sai Dairy Farms
B. Sudhakar Reddy
Corporation Bank (New Union Bank of India)
Battu Kavitha
Battu Saroja
Battu Malla Reddy
Gummadripopichand
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
