Dismissed

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Pm Industries

DRT10 Feb 2023RA/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-I, Chandigarh dismissed an application for review of an ex-parte order. The Presiding Officer held that Rule 5A of the DRT Procedure Rules, 1993, imposes a strict 30-day limitation with no power to condone delay, relying on Supreme Court precedent, despite the applicant's claim of bona fide reasons.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application was dismissed. All pending IAs were also dismissed.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Pm Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

RA No.01 of 2023

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

Review Application No.01/2023 IN OA No.501 of 2018 Punjab National Bank Versus M/s P. M. Industries and Ors.

¶4

10.02.2023 Item No.29

¶5

Present: Sh. AP Jagga, Counsel for the applicant in RA.

¶6

M/s P. M. Industries and Others (Applicants) have filed this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Review Application filed by them of the order dated 22.10.2018 and 23.10.2018. The Review Application was filed on 03.11.2022.

¶7

The backgrounds facts are that M/s P. M. Industries and Others had filed OA No.501/2018 wherein defendants/applicants were proceeded ex-parte on 22.10.2018. The OA was allowed on 23.10.2018.

¶8

Applicants filed the Review Application of the same on 03.11.2022, along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 1441 days.

¶9

In para 2 to 7 of the review application, the following facts have been alleged:-

¶10

“2. That the defendants were intending to appear in the subject matter, however, IA applicants were under the apprehension that the Bank will an application before the Hon'ble DRT, only if they fail to recover the dues after selling the secured asset under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and upto 27.10.2022. none of the property had been sold by the Applicant Bank and till such time since the amount of debt itself has not been quantified therefore they were under apprehension that present proceedings will not continue. Thus, the defendants were under a belief that no action is being taken by the Bank under the OA proceedings pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal.

¶11

3. That still further, it on 27.10.2022, when the defendants/applicants gained knowledge that one of the mortgaged property of defendant no. 4

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

RA No.01 of 2023

¶14

has been sold by the Bank. On further enquiry, the defendants have now gained knowledge that the OA filed by the Bank had been decreed ex-parte on 23.10.2018.

¶15

4. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the defendants intended to appear in the matter and had instructed a Counsel to appear in the matter before this Hon'ble Tribunal, who had also appeared on 03.08.2018 on oral instructions provided by the defendants/applicants herein. However, due to the above said reason, the defendants/applicants did not instruct the Counsel to pursue the matter, resultantly, the above-titled matter have been decreed ex-parte.

¶16

5. That the defendants were and still are intention to appear in the subject matter. It is well settled proposition of law that every case is required to be adjudicated on merits and procedural law is handmade of justice. Since, the defendants were mistakenly under an impression, that the proceedings before DRT under OA will be proceeded only after once, the secured assets will be sold, therefore, they could not pursue the present matter. Thus, the non appearance of the defendant is neither intentional nor deliberate and the same, may not be treated as forfeiture of right to contest the case on merits as submitted by the bank. Moreover, equitable relief is also admissible to the defendants, as it would be too harsh, to hold defendants ex-parte on account of non appearance on some dates. Even otherwise, the mandate of Section 22 of the RDB Act, 1993 is that this Hon'ble Court is bound by the principles of natural justice and one of the principle of natural justice is that no one shall be condemned unheard.

¶17

6. That it is still further, necessary to highlight herein that this Hon'ble Tribunal is vested with ample power and jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing such applications. Therefore, considering the bonafide of the applicants, the present application may kindly be allowed and the delay may be condoned.

¶18

7. That, as stated above, if the limitation is to be reckoned from the date of passing of ex parte order, then there is a delay of 1441 days in filing the present application. The delay of the part of the defendants/applicants is neither intentional nor deliberate, hence, the applicants crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal by way of condoning the delay and for such act of kindness, the applicants/defendants shall remain indebted. Still further, the time was consumed in obtaining documents required for preparation of the present application”.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

RA No.01 of 2023

¶21

In view of this, they filed the present Review Application. Applicant’s counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in C.A. No.5875 of 2005, tilted ‘ Bhagmal and Ors. Vs. Kunwar Lal and Ors’ decided on 27.07.2010.

¶22

5 . I have considered the contentions of the applicant’s counsel.

¶23

Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 read as under:-

¶24

“Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.

¶25

No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of (thirty days) from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.”

¶26

Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank Vs. MTC Limited (supra) held as under:

¶27

“The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From these two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation-otherwise they would not be maintainable.”

¶28

From the reading of the provisions of Rule 5A and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned judgment, it is abundantly clear that the application for review must be filed within 30 days from the date of order. Accordingly, the Review Application is, hereby, dismissed. All the pending IAs, if any, are also dismissed, accordingly.

¶29

File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

¶30

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶31

Pronounced in open court Dated: 10^th Feb. 2023

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Pm Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Pm Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr Kothakapu Manjula

Union Bank of India versus Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

State Bank of India versus Messers Kedar Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Naresh

Canara Bank versus Sri .N. Surender

State Bank of India versus Ms Formart Infra Projects