Partly allowed

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vidya Hi Tech Industries

DRT21 Oct 2023CA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected a time-barred appeal regarding the refusal to register an Originating Affidavit. The Tribunal noted the appeal was filed after the 15-day limit but, due to defect removal, directed the Registrar to register the case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is rejected being time-barred; however, the Registrar is directed to register the Originating Affidavit immediately.

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Vidya Hi Tech Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

cA/212023 HDFC BANK Vs M/S VIDYA HI TECH INDUSTRIES

¶4

2L.LO.2023

¶5

Item No.9

¶6

Present: Sh. HP Singh, Counsel for the Applicant bank alongwith Sh.Sunil Kalra, Legal Manager.

¶7

This is a Chamber Appeal against the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the learned Registrar, whereby learned Registrar, DRT-I, Chandigarh has refused to register the OA filed by HDFC Bank against M/s Vidya Hi Tech Industries and others.

¶8

This OA was filed sometime in March, 2023. The office found some defects in the same and vide order dated tL.O4.2023, the applicant was directed to remove the defects by 18.05.2023. Applicant did not remove the defects on 18.05.2023 and 03.07.2023. On 03.O7.2023, applicant was granted time till L9.O7.2023 to remove the defects. However, on 19.07.2023 also, the defects were not removed by the applicant. Consequently, vide order dated 09.08.2023, learned Registrar declined the request of the applicant for registration of case.

¶9

I have heard Mr.HP Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶10

Mr.HP Singh has argued that the order passed by the Registrar is illegal as Registrar was not having the file with him on the day he declined to register the case. It is admitted on the record that the application was handed over to the counsel for the applicant when registry found some defect in the same. As per applicant, impugned order was passed on 09.08.2023 and it was conveyed to him on L7.08.2023 and the present Chamber Appeal was filed on 05.09.2023.

¶11

As^per Rule 5(4) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Procedure Rules, an appeal should be filed within 15 days. However, present appeal was filed beyond time. Accordingly, Chamber Appeal is time barred and the same is hereby rejected.

¶12

I have also perused the grounds of appeal. In para No.5(c) and 6(b), the applicant bank has made some disparaging remarks against the learned Registrar, which are really uncalled for. Mr.Sunil Kalra, Legal Manager, has also made a statement at the Bar that these remarks may be taken offthe record. Accordingly, the remarks are removed from the record.

¶13

Mr.HP Singh, counsel for the applicant states that presently, he has removed all the objections and has no objection in case this OA is registered today itself.

¶14

In view of this, Registrar is directed to register the case today itself, against the court fees already deposited by the applicant bank. File be consigned to record room after due compliapce.

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vidya Hi Tech Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. M/S Vidya Hi Tech Industries

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

Anandi Govind Singh Rawat versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

B C Pandey versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Arya Shil Construction

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Shri Ganesh Textiles

Hdfc Bank versus Gautam Techagro India Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Dhruv Packaging