Allowed

Sidbi v. M/s.Shalom Micro Finance Ltd.

DRT2 Aug 2024MA/252/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a review petition filed by the petitioner bank seeking restoration of an Original Application dismissed for default. The default was attributed to the death of the bank's counsel and procedural difficulties. The Tribunal found the reasons convincing and restored the application to the file.

What did the court decide?

Review petition MA No.252/2022 allowed; Original Application OA No.593/2015 restored to file.

Sidbi versus M/s.Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 02^nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

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

¶5

MA No.252/2022 in OA No.593/2015

¶6

Between

¶7

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch MT Plaza, Ground Floor Kaloor – Kadavanthra Road Kochi – 682 017 Represented by its Deputy General Manager

¶8

--- Petitioner/Applicant

¶9

And

¶10

M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. Building No.59, Grace Cottage Devinagar, Nurani P.O. Palakkad – 678 014

¶11

Represented by its Managing Director

¶12

Jayson Joy M. J. Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. 12/32, Anthottathil House Thekkedesom, Nalleppilly P. O. Chittur, Palakkad – 678 553

¶13

MA No.252/2022 in OA No.593/2015

¶14

Joby M. Joy Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. 12/32, Anthottathil House Thekkedesom, Nalleppilly P. O. Chittur, Palakkad – 678 553

¶15

Sivadas Chetoor Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. 18/381 (3), Chetoor House Slamath Nagar, Palakkad – 678 001

¶16

Raju A. Cherian Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. 1/85/G, Aruvumakal, 9^th Cross Divine Nagar, South Chittur P.O. Kochi – 682 027

¶17

Montegomery Sen Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. 178, Prashashan Nagar Road No.72, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033

¶18

V. K. Janardhanan (Died) Director M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. Vallolikkulam, Kanyampuram Mankara P.O., Palakkad – 678 613

¶19

--- Respondents/Defendants

¶20

This petition coming on 12.07.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Ms. Keerthy, Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant Bank and Mr. Poly Mathai, Advocate for the 5^th Respondent/5^th Defendant and upon hearing arguments of learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the material records and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

MA No.252/2022 in OA No.593/2015

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

MA No.252/2022 in OA No.593/2015 :- This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to review the order dated 22.09.2022 and restore the Original Application.

¶25

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the counsel for the petitioner expired and that since no counsel was assigned to represent the matter, delay occurred in filing fresh Vakalathnama and proof affidavit and that the details of the deceased 7^th defendant could not be obtained and that fresh Vakalathnama on behalf of the petitioner could be filed only on 22.09.2022 and that therefore, the order dated 22.09.2022 may be reviewed and Original Application may be restored back to file.

¶26

The counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that the 5^th respondent is an unnecessary party to the OA and that the 5^th respondent resigned from the post of directorship of the company M/s. Shalom Micro Finance Ltd. in May, 2010 and that the petitioner bank failed to comply with the order of this Tribunal in filing fresh Vakalathnama and proof affidavit and original documents and that therefore, the OA was dismissed for default and that this petition may be dismissed.

¶27

It is seen from the averments of the affidavit filed by the petitioner bank alongwith the petition that when the OA in OA No.593/2015 had been posted to 22.09.2022 for filing fresh Vakalathnama and for proof affidavit, there was no proof affidavit on file and steps to implead legal heirs of deceased 7^th defendant was also not taken. Hence, this Tribunal was constrained to pass the order dismissing the Original Application for default. The petitioner has further stated in his affidavit that since the counsel for the applicant expired and there was difficulty in obtaining the details of legal heirs of deceased 7^th defendant and non-filing of proof affidavit, the OA was dismissed for default.

¶28

In any event, considering the reasons stated by the counsel for the petitioner bank in the affidavit for the delay in filing Vakalathnama and proof affidavit appears to be convincing.

¶29

In view of the forgoing reasons, the petition MA No.252/2022 stands allowed and the Original Application is restored back to file.

¶30

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 02^nd day of August, 2024.

¶31

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Sidbi v. M/s.Shalom Micro Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidbi v. M/s.Shalom Micro Finance Ltd.

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

Central Bank of India versus Krushna Chandra kamala

State Bank of India versus M/S Govinda Cement Works, Throuth Its Prioprietor Shri Akshay Sanjay Vyawhare

Sunil Ratnakar Gutte versus Uco Bank

Indian Bank versus Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Rakesh Tripathi

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Noor Hide Company