The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application seeking condonation of a 1518-day delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex-parte final order. The court found that summons were duly served, the petitioner failed to appear, and the claim of non-receipt of notice was palpably false.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 1ATH DAY OF JULY,2023
PRESENT: GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER
IA.No.2 4t /2023 IN MA.rR.No.128/2023 Ir.t OA.No.5O5/ZOtA
Mrs. Mannem Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. Mannem Sudarshan, aged: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-T-67 14, Fathe Nagar, Medak.
Petitioner/ Defendant No.3.
Versus
State Bank of India, ARM Branch, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. & 4 others.
Respondent/ Applicant
Counselfor Respondent No.1 :
Sn T. Sridhar.
Sn G. Prabhakar Sarma.
-:ORDER:-
- This application is filed by the Petitioner to condone the delay of 151g days in filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte final order dt. 15. ll.2O18 passed in OA.No.SO5/201g.
tA.No.241/2023
has issued notice calling upon her to vacate the premises and SO, there is a need to condone the delay of 1s18 days in liling an application to set-aside the ex-parte final order dt.1S.11.201g.
Point:-
- A perusal of the docket clearly indicates that summons were duly served on the Petitioner, who is defendant No.3 in the oA and as she failed to appear before this Tribunal, she was set ex-parte and ultimately final orders in the oA were passed on 15.11.201g and Recovery certificate was issued in favour of the Applicant Bank. Basing on the said ,|eqovery certificate, the concerned Recovery officer has i6ftiA1d'dfoid$Sings for taking physical possession of the
property.-EblongiqB to trf$ fletitioner and at this juncture, the Petitionpr |.; 11"p.,3#ihed*riuis Tribunalby filing the present
aRprilatio" a [.Ju[,-l[&. osg or rs,r ;" ,; r;;;J'.o01.",,", to set-. i' 1.2018 passed in the OA by contend any notice in the OA. But, the
tA.No,241/202j
said stand taken by the petitioner is palpably false. Moreover, the Petitioner has not mentioned as to under what circumstances such huge delay was caused. so, considering all the circumstances, I hold that, there are no merits in the present application and same is liable to be dismissed.
(Dictated to the Priuate secretary, transcribed bg him, corrected, signed and pronounced bg me itt the open court on this the 14tn dag of Julg, 2023).
sd/(c. coPrcHAND) Presiding Officer
TRU
Assf.
I}RT.I, h
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to condone a delay of 1518 days in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte final order?
Whether the petitioner received notice in the Order of Attachment (OA) No.505/2018?
Mannem Vijayalakshmi
State Bank of India
Gummdi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
