State Bank of India v. v a.Antony
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal allowed a petition to restore a dismissed Original Application regarding an outstanding loan recovery case, accepting the bank’s explanation for non-compliance with service directions.
What did the court decide?
The Original Application No.385/2018 is restored back to file.
What the court decided
Fair order
MA No.147/2023 in OA 385/2018
14.09.2023
- This petition has been filed by the petitioner bank seeking to restore the OA No.385/2018, in the interest of justice.
- The petitioner bank herein is the applicant who has filed the OA No.385/2018 against the respondents who are the defendants for recovery of the outstanding loan due.
- The matter was being adjourned to various dates to effect substituted service of summons by way of paper publication on defendants by the petitioner bank. When the matter came up for hearing on 09.06.2023 the counsel for the applicant bank again sought time to take steps. Hence, this Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the Original Application for want of compliance. Therefore, the petitioner bank has filed this petition praying to restore the Original Application to file.
- The counsel for the applicant bank has averred in his affidavit filed alongwith the petition that due to inadvertent omission on his part, he could not comply with the direction of this Tribunal and that the Original Application had been dismissed for want of compliance on 09.06.2023.
- In any event, considering the reasons stated by the counsel for the petitioner bank in the affidavit for the inability of the counsel to take substituted service of summons on the defendants appears to be convincing.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the dismissed Original Application OA No.385/2018 should be restored in the interest of justice.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Petitioner Bank
- respondent
Respondents (Defendants)
Coram
Presiding Officer
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court