M/S Pine Polymers v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal set aside an ex parte order in a money recovery matter due to non-service of the OA copy and annexed documents, distinguishing a Supreme Court precedent on divisible facts under the RDB Act.
What did the court decide?
Ex parte order dated 24.08.2022 set aside; Recovery Certificate recalled; MA disposed of; OA No.1437/2020 restored.
What the court decided
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
MA No.16 of 2023 IN OA No.1437 of 2020 Canara Bank Versus M/s Pine Polymers and another
28.07.2023
Item No.70
Present: Sh.Vikram Bajaj, Counsel for the MA Applicants. Sh.Aseem Kataria, Counsel for the respondent bank.
Heard on MA No.16 of 2023
M/s Pine Polymers and another (Applicants) have filed this application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 24.08.2022, passed in OA No.1437 of 2020.
- On 07.07.2020, Canara Bank (Respondent) had filed OA No.1437 of 2020 against the Applicants, for the recovery of Rs.51,34,280.49p. Vide order dated 24.08.2022, the said OA was allowed ex parte. With this background, I come to the MA.
- In the MA, Applicants have alleged that they were not served with a copy of paper-book as well as documents. Accordingly, there was no proper service. They came to know of the order dated 24.08.2022 on 10.01.2023 when they received the demand notice dated 19.11.2022. Accordingly, applicants state that the ex parte order dated 24.08.2022 be set aside.
- In the reply, bank has alleged that the applicants were duly served dasti as well as by registered post. Bank states that in case there was any irregularity in the service of the summons that cannot be a ground to set aside the ex parte order.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether non-supply of OA copy and annexed documents constitutes valid ground to set aside an ex parte recovery order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Pine Polymers
- appellant
another
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court