Disposed

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

DRT22 Nov 2024MA/1/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal considered an application to set aside an ex parte order in a recovery certificate case. Noting that the respondent banks admitted the personal guarantees had already been released, the court directed the deletion of the applicants' names and termination of recovery proceedings without annulling the underlying order.

What did the court decide?

Deleted names of applicants from recovery certificate and directed termination of all recovery proceedings against them.

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 22Nd DAY OF, NOVEMBER,2024 PRESENT: sRI. GUMMADI GoPIcHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

MA. NO. Ot oF 2022 IN OA No. 336 OF 2019

¶3

Between

¶4

Shri. Uppala Kantha Rao, R/o: 54lS, 2nd Avenue, Anupuram, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-500062. And another.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

IDBI Bank Ltd, 5-9 -Bg / 782, Chapel Road, Hyderabad-500001. And others.

¶8

.... Respondent/s

¶9

DOCKET ORDER DT. 22.11.2024.

¶10

MA.No.t/2022:

¶11

This is an application filed by the petitioners/ defendants no.3&4forsetting aside the order and judgement dated 28.10.2021 passed expa rte against the petitioners herein in OA.336/2019. In the affidavit filed by the defendant No.3/ petitioner no.1 he averred that petitioner no.2 is his wife and they are defendants no.3 & 4 in OA. The OA was filed by respondents no.1 to 3 he re in recovery of money from respondent no.4 to B herein and the pe

¶12

The petitioners have not received know about the order passed in The petitioners herein offered

¶13

nd they came to ther defendant. a ncial facilities

¶14

sanctioned by the respondents no.1 to 3 to respondent no.4. Later the personal guarantees oF the petitioners are released by respondents no.1 to 3 herein. Moreover the petitioners resigned as directors of Defendant no.4 company on 23.o7.2007. so the petitioners are not liable to pay as claimed by respondents no. 1 to 3. Hence there is a need to set aside the exparte order dated 28.7O.202L passed in OA.336/2019.

¶15

Respondents no. 1 to 3 who are applicants in oA filed counter admitting that the applicants in oA arready rereased the personar guarantee of petittners herein but inadvertently the names of the petitioners herein have been included in oA and respondents no.1 to 3 have no objection to derete the names of petitioners in the recovery certificate and terminate all recovery proceedings.

¶16

Heard the arguments.

¶17

Now the point for consideration is whether the applicants have estabrished any ground for setting aside the exparte order /judgement dated 28.70.2021 in OA.336/2019 ?

¶18

The OA.336/2019 fired by the appricant banks viz., IDBI, SBI and pNB was allowed on 28'70.2021 against defendants no. 1 to 7. The petitioners herein are defendants no. 3 & 4 in C,A.336/2019 and as per the order in oA, it is clear that they were set exparte on 27.08.2or9 and in pursuance of the order in OA dated 28.lO.2O2L, recovery certiFicate was issued.

¶19

The respondents No.1 to 3 herein who are the appricants in oA by firing counter clearly admitted that the personal guarantees offered by the petitioner herein were arready rereased by the appricants but inadvertenfly they are included in the oA. The respondents no.1 to 3 affirmed that they have no objection for dereting the names of defendants and terminating the recovery proceedings aga inst them.

¶20

So in view of the counter filed by the respondents no.1 to 3 to the effect that the liability of the petitioners h ere in was discharged-much prior to the filing of OA, I am of the opinion is no need to set aside the order passed in OA.336/2019 as titioners but the names of the petitioners/ defendants'\o. deleted from the recovery certificate.

¶21

2 ? ll0\I ztm
i j'. +
:, - ,r -oQ:S,
W,qtn9

¶22

So this point is answered accordingly,

¶23

In the result, the MA.No.7/2022 is disposed of with a direction to the registry to delete the names of petitioners who are defendants no. 3 & 4 from the recovery certificate and concerned Recovery Officer is directed to terminate all the recovery proceedings against the petitioners herein.

¶24

sd/Presiding Officer

¶25

':5- *
f r, fi%u
??tlou lmt a

¶26

UE COPY
'/./l---.- / ',-,
' n5,]1o,"*, a yf,''/24
DPr-t. HyDERAo , - '( c )

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

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

State Bank of India versus Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Circuit Computer Services

State Bank of India versus M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank

Bank of Baroda versus BBs Kesana Foods

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. a and a Marketing