In a review application regarding the setting aside of an auction, the Tribunal dismissed the plea that the applicant was not served notice, noting that counsel had earlier filed vakalatnamas on his behalf and appeared to argue the case.
Review application dismissed; order sent to Recovery Officer.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
RA/7/2022 UCO BANK Vs DHRUB ENTERPRISES &
RA/8/2022
RAM CHANDER CHAUHAN Vs RECOVERY OFFICER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL I CHANDIGARH
15.09.2022
Item No.41 & 42
Present: Sh.Tejinder Singh, Counsel for applicant (Jagat Ram) Sh.Sanjiv Gupta, Counsel for respondent/UCO Bank. Sh.Nand Lal Purohit, Counsel for Auction Purchaser(Ram Chander Chauhan)
Jagat Ram (applicant) has filed this review application of the order dated 07.05.2022, passed by this Tribunal in the two appeals filed by UCO Bank and Ram Chander Chauhan/auction purchaser, respondent against the order of Recovery Officer, dated 24.12.2020, whereby Recovery Officer set aside the auction.
Vide order dated 07.05.2022, this Tribunal had allowed both the appeals filed by UCO Bank and Ram Chander Chauhan/auction purchaser and set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2020, passed by Recovery Officer.
Presently, Jagat Ram (applicant) who is the owner of the mortgage property and who had stood surety for Vidya Sagar Sharma has filed this review application, with the averments that in the appeals filed by UCO Bank and Ram Chander Chauhan, he was never served any notice, and this Tribunal allowed both the appeals filed by UCO Bank and Ram Chander Chauhan, against the order dated 24.12.2020, whereby the Recovery Officer had set aside the auction. Applicant states that he has been prejudiced on account of not being heard in the appeal.
I have heard Mr. Tejinder Singh, Counsel for applicant (Jagat Ram); Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Counsel for respondent bank and Mr.Nand Lal Purohit, Counsel for auction purchaser.
A perusal of the appeal file would show that vide order dated 09.02.2021, notice was issued to Vidya Sagar Sharma and Jagat Ram for 03.03.2021. Bank had filed service affidavit, vide diary No.1392, dated 25.02.2021, of Shri Vikas Bhargav, Manager, UCO Bank, stating that service has been duly effected
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
upon Vidya Sagar Sharma and Jagat Ram, through registered post as well as dasti. Thereafter, on 03.03.2021, Shri Rajnish Chauhan, had filed vakalatnamas on behalf of Jagat Ram and Vidya Sagar Sharma, respectively, in the registry. Both these vakalanamas are on the record. Mr.Rajnish Chauhan had appeared in this court on 07.05.2022 and had argued on behalf of Vidya Sagar Sharma.
Since, Mr.Rajnish Chauhan had filed vakalatnamas on behalf of Vidya Sagar Sharma and Jagat Ram, therefore, it cannot be said that said Jagat Ram (applicant) was not given the opportunity to present his case. In view of this, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out to review the order. Accordingly, the review application is hereby dismissed . A copy of this order be also sent to Recovery Officer.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Pronounced in open court Manoj
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant was denied an opportunity to present his case in the appellate proceedings where a vakalatnamas was filed on his behalf.
UCO Bank
Ram Chander Chauhan
Jagat Ram
Vidya Sagar Sharma
Manoj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
