Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

DRT25 Oct 2023MA/166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Presiding Officer of the DRT Jaipur dismissed a miscellaneous application filed by the applicant against AU Small Finance Bank. The court held the application barred by limitation as it was filed months after the original suit was dismissed in default, noting the applicant's financial status (fire incident) did not override procedural bars.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application is disposed of as dismissed.

Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal- Jaipur

¶2

Item No. 4

¶3

Case No. MA 166/2022 IN

¶4

SA No. 350/2021

¶5

ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA VS AU SMALL FINANCE BANK

¶6

Date: 25.10.2023

¶7

Present:

¶8

Sh. Mohit Khandelwal, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶9

Sh. Akshat Kulshrestha, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This Miscellaneous Application was filed by SA applicant on 05.08.2022 in SA no. 350/2021 which was disposed of as dismissed in default on 30.03.2022 because Ld. Counsel for the applicant failed to appear on 28.01.2022 and finally on 30.03.2022.

¶12

Vide order dated 08.08.2022, SA applicant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/- which stands deposited and Respondent bank was directed to not to take any coercive action as the SA applicant was directed to get the account settled, but in fact the same could not be settled and finally Ld. Counsel for the applicant came with a fact that the shop of the SA applicant got fire on 15.10.2022, everything got burnt, so SA applicant is not at all in position to repay the outstanding amount and he further submitted that the Respondent bank may be directed to not to take any

¶13

¶14

coercive action, considering the financial position of SA applicant.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent bank objected the ground taken by SA applicant and he submitted that SA was disposed of as dismissed in default on 30.03.2022, whereas incident of fire took place on 15.10.2022.

¶16

Ld. Counsel also submitted that SA which was disposed of as dismissed in default in 30.03.2022, the SA applicant required to file MA within 30 days time, but this MA was filed on 05.08.2022 and so the MA is also barred by limitation.

¶17

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶18

It is a fact that two opportunities were granted to Ld. Counsel for the applicant i.e. 28.01.2022 and 28.02.2022, but on 3^rd opportunity i.e. 30.03.2022, none appeared on behalf of SA applicant and therefore SA was disposed of as dismissed in default.

¶19

It is also a fact that the MA was filed on 05.08.2022 which is also barred by limitation and incident of fire took place on 15.10.2022 and in my considered opinion, applicant could have taken steps in order to satisfy the demand raised by Respondent FI because it is admitted that the credit facility was availed by SA applicant.

¶20

Accordingly I do not find any reason to allow this MA, therefore, this MA stands disposed of as dismissed.

¶21

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶22

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

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

Anand Sharma versus Hdfc Bank

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gurmukh Singh

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Pira Ram

Paras Mal versus Punjab National Bank

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Sukhwant Singh

Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank versus Gursewak Singh Jatsikh