Dismissed

Anand Sharma v. Hdfc Bank

DRT23 Oct 2023MA/142/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous application filed to recall an ex parte order, the court rejected the applicant's claim of non-service due to a typographical error in the OA. The court held the grounds insincere, noting the applicants deliberate avoidance, and dismissed the application as devoid of merit and time-barred.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application was disposed of as dismissed with a direction to the Recovery Certificates Officer to conclude proceedings within six months.

Anand Sharma versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal- Jaipur

¶3

Item No.

¶4

Case No. MA 142/2023

¶5

¶6

OA No. 43/2022

¶7

ANAND SHARMA Vs HDFC BANK

¶8

Date: 23.10.2023

¶9

Present:

¶10

Sh. Ram Vijay Borana, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

Sh. Mukesh Chand Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶12

Final Order

¶13

This Miscellaneous Application was filed by Mr. Anand Sharma and his wife Smt. Ruchita Sharma with a prayer to recall/modify the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by this Tribunal in OA no. 43/2022, through which the defendants were declared as ex parte.

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the SA applicant submitted that OA no. 43/2022 was decided by this Tribunal as ex parte vide order dated 17.11.2022 and the defendants (being present applicant) were proceeded as ex parte on 28.07.2023.

¶15

It is stated in Para 6 of the MA that the name of husband of Applicant no. 2 is Anand Sharma, whereas in the OA it is mentioned as Rajendra Kumar Sharma, therefore notices issued by this Tribunal through registered post were not got delivered upon him as well as applicant no. 2. It was further argued that the applicant bank failed to file

¶16

¶17

¶18

acknowledgement record as well as they failed to file online track report on record.

¶19

Therefore the defendants were not in position to get the knowledge of notice issued by this Tribunal and therefore the order dated 28.07.2023 through which the defendants were declared ex parte is required to be recalled/modified and so the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by this Tribunal through which the OA no. 43/2022 decided finally is also required to be recalled and an opportunity is required to be granted to MA applicant so that they can file reply to OA and can argue the matter after filing reply to OA.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank strongly objected the ground taken by Ld. Counsel for the MA applicant and he submitted that in the order dated 17.11.2022, name of Mr. Anand Sharma is clearly mentioned and name of Mrs. Ruchita Sharma is also mentioned as wife of Sh. Anand Sharma. It is a typographical error because defendant no. 2 is daughter of Sh. Rajendra Kumar Sharma and wife of Mr. Anand Sharma and he also submitted that the MA applicant knowingfully avoided the service issued by this Tribunal, whereas they have approached to this Tribunal so that prayed that prayer to recall /modify in the order of this Tribunal so the prayer is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶21

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶22

As per record, in OA no. 23/2021 was decided on 01.12.2021 and the defendants were declared as ex parte on 28.07.2022.

¶23

¶24

¶25

This miscellaneous application was filed by applicant bank on 03.07.2023 and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is also filed in which in para 2, it is admitted that they received the notice, but the date of receiving is not mentioned and in Para 3, it is admitted that upon receiving of the said order, the applicant filed application for getting certified copy of order dated 02.06.2023, which was obtained by them on 09.06.2023, therefore this MA was filed on 03.07.2023.

¶26

In the present matter reply to MA which was filed by the respondent bank was having seal of Kotak Mahindra Bank on last two pages, whereas the reply was to be filed on behalf of HDFC Bank.

¶27

On 23.10.2023, reply to MA was filed along with IA no. 2266/2023 with a prayer to take reply on record.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶29

Reply to MA is allowed to be taken on record. Authorized Officer of the Bank is hereby directed to be careful in future while filing reply in any of the matter pending before this Tribunal.

¶30

The OA is having details of defendant no. 1 and 2, notices for this OA were issued by this Tribunal on the same address which is as alleged by MA applicant were not served upon them, but very interestingly the Recovery Certificate issued by this Tribunal was served upon the defendants and after that they obtained certified copy and filed this MA.

¶31

¶32

¶33

The amount as involved is more than Rs. 1.08 Crore, any ground taken by MA applicants are not genuine because in my considered opinion, they knowingfully well avoided the service of notices issued by this Tribunal or they knowingfully well preferred to not to appear before this Tribunal in response to the notices issued in OA no. 43/2022 and when they got Recovery Certificate and when the recovery proceedings were in progress, they preferred this miscellaneous application. Accordingly, this MA being devoid of any merit and being time barred is disposed of as dismissed.

¶34

Ld. RO of this Tribunal who is dealing with recovery certificate in this OA is hereby directed to dispose of recovery certificate as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six month time from the date of this order and to file compliance report before this Tribunal on 26.04.2024.

¶35

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶36

Anand Sharma v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Sharma v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Manoj Kumar

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gouvara Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Girdhari Lal Deceased Thr Lrs and Ors.

Smt Suvarcha Choudhary versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gurmukh Singh

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Pira Ram