Dismissed

Palakurthy SAtaiah v. State Bank of India

DRT6 Apr 2023MA/59/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad dismissed an application filed under Section 22(2)(ii) RDB Act, 1993, seeking to set aside an order. The Tribunal held the impugned order was passed on merits following a proper hearing opportunity mandated by the High Court, and the petitioner failed to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application to set aside the order dated 22.10.2021 in OA No. 90/2019 is dismissed.

Palakurthy SAtaiah versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL- IAT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

MA.No.59,/2c22 IN oA.No.90./2U^19

¶5

Palakurthy Sathaiah, S/o. Sri Narsaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Sarpanch, R/o. H.No. 1-29, Dongaturthy Village, Dharmaram Mandal, Peddapalli District.

Petitioner/

Defendant.

Tersus

Telangana Grameena Bank, Karimnagar Branch.

¶10

Respondent/ Applicant.

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for tle Respondent

¶12

Si Ch. Ki.shore. Si S. Mujib Kumar.

¶13

.:ORDERi

¶14

This application is frled by the Petitioner/Defendant t /s.22(2)(hl of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for setting aside the order dt.22.l0.2O2l passed by this Tribunat in OA.No.9OI2O19.

¶15

The averments made by the Petitioner in his affrdavit, in brief, are that, the Petitioner earlier frled IA.No.2186/2019 to condone the delay in filing the petition to set-aside ex-parte order dt.O1.O5.2O19 passed against him and this Tribunal dismissed the said IA. Aggrieved by the said order of this Tribunal, the Petitioner approached the Honble High Court of Telangana by /2019^and t1le Honble High Court vide order

¶16

d,..s' this Tribunal for giving an opportunity to the the OA. It is contended by the Petitioner that

¶17

he could not attend the Tribunat and avail the Hontrle High Court. It is further contended by without giving any opportunity to the

¶18

MA.No.S9/2021

¶19

Petitioner, allowed the oA vide order dt.22.lo.2o2l and if the said order dt.22.1O.2O27 is not set-aside, he would be put to irreparable loss.

¶20

5_ Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bark, without fi.ling the Counter, argued that, despite opportunity alforded to the petitioner by the Honble High Court, he did not utilize the same and so, he is not entitled to any relief.

¶21

Ld. counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the version of the Petitioner as stated spura.

¶22

The point for consideration is whether the petitioner has established a,y grounds for setting aside the order dt.22.10.2021 passed in oA.No.go/2o1g?

¶23

6' A perusa-l of the docket proceedings of this Tribunar reveals that, the Petitioner herein is tl.e sole defendant in oA.No.90/2o19 and the summons sent to him in the oA got returned with postal endorsement as ,Uncraimed,. so, the Petitioner was set ex-parte on 26.03.2019 and the final order in oA was passed on o1.05.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner herein fiIed IA.No.2186/2o19 to condone the deray in frling a petitioner to set-aside the ex-parte order and the said IA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dt.18.10.2o19. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High court of relangana by frling wp.No.26332/2o 19 and the Hontrle High court a-[owed the said writ petition vide its order dt.28.71.2}79 and directed this Tribunal to give an opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the oA by fixing time for filing written statement and for trial and the^petitioner was also directed to cooperate for the early disposal of the OA. ld. Counsel for the petitioner herein frled a copy of the said order of the Honble High court before this Tribunal on 12.o2.2o2o and, the oA was posted to 17 .o2.2o2o. when the matter was caned on 17 .o2.2o2o, there was no representation for the petitioner. Thereafter, in view- of di6,,advisory of the Honble High Court regarding lockdown due to Covid- 19, thd i,. was adjourned from time to time. Later when the functioning of t6 resumed on 13.09.2O21, Ld. Counsel appearing 0f& t&flffio.r".'I, that, the material papers were not served on him and so, the Respondent Bank was directed to serve the material papers

¶24

MA.No.59/2021

¶25

and the matter was posted to o4.lo.2o2l for frling of written statement and Evidence Affrdavit of the Petitioner. on o4.lo.2o2l, written Statement and Evidence Affidavit were not frled and the Ld. counsel for the petitioner sought time. So, the matter was posted to 06.10.202l for liling of Written Statement and Evidence Alfrdavit by the petitioner and also for arguments in the oA. on 06.10.2o21, the^petitioner fired written statement but failed to frle his Evidence Affidavit and the matter was posted to 1g.10.2O21. On 18.Lo.2o27, since the Petitioner failed to lile his Evidence Affidavit even aJter fixing the date as per the directions of the Honble High Court, the right of adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioner was forfeited. so, the frnal orders in the oA were passed on 22.10.2o2r by taking into consideration the Written Statement frled by the Petitioner.

¶26

¶27

So, as can be seen from the above, even after alfording arr opportunity to the Petitioner to contest the oA by frling his written statement and Evidence and cooperate for the early disposal of the oA, as per the directions of tl.e Hon'ble High Court, the Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence on his behalf. This Tribunal after taking into consideration, the written statement filed by tlre Petitioner, allowed the OA vide order dt.22.l}.2o2l on merits and it is not an ex-parte order. If the petitioner is aggrieved of the said order dt.22.1O.2O27, the remedy available to him is to prefer an appeal but not filing an application before this Tribunal to set-aside the said order. So, I do not find arry merits in the present application and same is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

In the result, the present application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶29

Dictated to Priuate Sectetoru, trdtlsoibed. bV hifiL crrrected, sbned. the 6^ d.aA of ApriL 2023)

¶30

dftd. pronouftced. bA me it the opet court on this

¶31

(G. GoPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

0 6 APRm

¶33

TRUE COPY
AsstXeglsrrar
o8j:f, HYOFRT /J.4

Palakurthy SAtaiah v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakurthy SAtaiah v. State Bank of India

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

Ms Sai Enterprises and Others versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s The Root Collection and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Satyam Sivam Sundram Rice Mill and Others

State Bank of India versus Shree Sai Minerals

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Nawada Furniture Udyog and others

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Rishi Eat Udyog and others