Dismissed

Abdul Razak v. State Bank of India

DRT20 Aug 2024MA/205/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a motion to set aside an ex parte final order. The Tribunal found the petitioner's reasons for non-appearance in the original proceedings to be false and noted a significant, unexplained delay in filing the present motion.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the petition to set aside the ex parte final order dated 16.06.2022 was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Abdul Razak versus State Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 20^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

MA No.205/2023 in OA No.118/2020

¶6

Between

¶7

Abdul Razak Pallath House Thottakkara, Ottappalam Palakkad District – 679 102

¶8

--- Petitioner/1^st Defendant

¶9

And

¶10

State Bank of India (Erstwhile State Bank of Travancore) Represented by it Assistant General Manager Asset Recovery Management Branch 1^st Floor, R. S. Building M. G. Road, Ernakulam

¶11

--- Respondent/Applicant Bank

¶12

This petition coming on 13.08.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Thankam Mukundakrishnan, Advocate for the Respondent/Applicant Bank and arguments from the side of Petitioner/1^st Defendant not advanced and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for the Respondent/Applicant bank and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶13

MA No. 205/2023 in OA 118/2020

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

MA No.205/2023 in OA No.118/2020 :- This petition has been filed praying to set aside exparte final order dated 16.06.2022 passed in OA No.118/2020.

¶16

It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had entrusted his matter to one Advocate K. B. Arunkumar for contesting the case on his behalf and the 2^nd defendant and that the said Advocate relinquished his Vakalathnama and entrusted the matter to another Advocate practising in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the petitioner signed the written statement in order to submit the same before this Tribunal and that on enquiry the petitioner came to know that Advocate Benoy Vasudevan did not appear on his behalf and the 2^nd defendant before this Tribunal and that when he enquired the counsel, he issued a certificate dated 22.07.2023 to show his non-appearance before this Tribunal and that the delay in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order is not wilful and that therefore, the exparte final order may be set aside.

¶17

Per contra it is submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent bank that though summons was served on the petitioner and the 2^nd defendant on 27.08.2020, they did not appear before this Tribunal and that they were set exparte only on 23.03.2022 and that final order was passed on 16.06.2022 and that the reason stated by the petitioner for his non-appearance and nonsubmission of written statement is incorrect and that the petitioner was not at all vigilant in defending his case and that free copy of the final order was also served to him sooner of the passing of the final order and that nevertheless the petitioner did not take any steps to set aside the exparte final order and that there are no valid and legally sustainable grounds in this petition to set aside the exparte final order and that therefore, this petition may be dismissed with costs to the respondent bank.

¶18

The respondent bank filed the Original Application No.118/2020 against the petitioner who is the 1^st defendant and the 2^nd defendant for recovery of the outstanding loan due with interest and for other reliefs. The petitioner and the 2^nd defendant failed to appear before this Tribunal on 28.09.2020 though summons were served on them. Written statement was also not filed on behalf of them. The matter was posted to 23.03.2021, 30.06.2021, 20.09.2021 and 23.03.2022. On the aforesaid dates also the petitioner and the 2^nd defendant did not appear before this Tribunal either in person or through their counsel. The order sheet for the above said hearing dates reveals the fact that their

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

MA No. 205/2023 in OA 118/2020

¶21

counsel who is said to have been entrusted with the case to file written statement did not appear before this Tribunal nor did he file Vakalathnama for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the letter dated 03.02.2022 which is said to have been given by the above said Advocate. It is stated in the letter that the Advocate relinquished his Vakalathnama and that he has no objection in engaging any other counsel for the defendants in the OA. The relinquishment of Vakalathnama will arise only if the said Advocate had filed the Vakalathnama of the defendants. But on perusal of the case records shows that no such Vakalathnama has been filed by the above said Advocate for the petitioner and the 2^nd defendant. Thus it is evident that the averment of the petitioner that he had entrusted one Advocate K. B. Arunkumar for contesting the case and that he relinquished his Vakalathnama is absolutely false.

¶22

Since there was no representation for the petitioner and the 2^nd defendant and written statement was not filed on their behalf, this Tribunal was constrained to pass an order on 23.03.2022 setting them exparte. Though they were set exparte as early as on 23.03.2022, final order was passed by this Tribunal on 16.06.2022 that is to say after a lapse of more than 80 days. The petitioner did not bother to know the stage of the case and also to verify as to whether written statement was filed on his behalf.

¶23

After passing of the final order, copy of the final order has to be sent to the defendants through registered post free of cost in terms of Rule 16 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. Accordingly copy of the final order was sent to the petitioner and the 2^nd defendant through registered post. It appears that the petitioner has filed this petition on 11.08.2023 after a lapse of more than a year pursuant to receipt of the recovery certificate issued by this Tribunal. The petitioner has not stated any satisfactory or convincing reason in the affidavit alongwith the petition as to why he did not file this petition in time. Thus it is evident that he has not properly and satisfactorily explained the delay of one year in filing this petition.

¶24

This Tribunal does not find any valid merits or reasonable grounds to set aside the exparte final order dated 16.06.2022. Resultantly, this petition i.e. MA 205/2022 stands dismissed.

¶25

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 20^th day of August, 2024.

¶26

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Abdul Razak v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Gian Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Ezhumalai

Ms Rav Smittens Opc Private Limited versus Canara Bank

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Alpine Foods

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Shri Durga Cycle Stores

Canara Bank versus M/S Maa Kamakhya Print Pack