Allowed

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., v. M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

DRT22 Jul 2024MA/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application to condone a delay of 1539 days in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte order. The order was set aside on the ground that the decree was a nullity as the deceased defendant had not been replaced by legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order was allowed.

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

rA. NO. tAL20F 2024 IN MAIR. NO. 918 0F 2022 IN oA. NO. 72 0F 2018

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Instruments Techniques Private Limited, B-2, Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037. And others.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, C/o. 55-56,5th Floor, Free Press House, Nariman point, Mumbai-400021. And others.

¶8

... Respondent/s

¶9

DOCKET ORDER DT. 22.07.2024.

¶10

This is an application filed under section 22(2)(h) of RDDB Act read with 5 of limitation Act for condoning the deray of 1539'days for firing tne fetiiion to set aside the exparte order dated 16.08.201g fired by petitio-ners,io.i,: aro 4.

¶11

It is averred th at deponent herein is the authorized signatory of defendants no.1 and 4. The deponent came to know about the exparte proceedings in OA when NCLT proceedin initiated aga inst petitioner No.3. Thereafter he came to kno ng of exparteorder in the OA and issuance of recovery ce ings are pending before the NCLT againstpetitioner he re So is a delay of 1539 days for TF 2 2 JUL^7rl20

¶12

filing the petition to set aside exparte order dated 16.08.2018 andprayed that the same may be condoned.

¶13

This application is resisted by the respondent no.1 by filing counter affidavit contending that oA was filed on 30.3,201S,thereafter not-ices were sent to defendants/ petitioners but the same were returned and publication was made in "Andhra Jyothi" Terugu dairy on 01.06.2018. Thereafter the defendants were set exparte on 03.07.2018 and subsequently the matter was disposed on 16.08.2018 and recovery proceedings were initiated in RP.No,636/2018. The petitioners are having the knowredge of the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1. ihe petitioners have not submitted any sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte order dated 16. B.2018.

¶14

Heard the arguments.

¶15

Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner made a valid ground for condoning the delay of 153g days in filing the petition to set aside order dated 16.08.2018 in OA.No .72/2078.

¶16

During the course of arguments, the Ld counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Tribunal about the death of defendant no.2 in oA i.e., sri Dr.S.S.R.L. swamy on 27.02.2or4. The original death certificate of the said ssRL swamy is filed. According to the death certificate, Sri SSRL Swamy died on 27.2.2014. When the said Swamy died in 2014, the applicant bank instead of adding LR's of said swamy shown defendant no.2 as if he is alive. subsequenily the decree was passed in oA.72/2ol8 and so it is a nullity and liabre to be set aside at any time. so basing on the said grounds, I am of the opinion that the deray caused by the petiti5ners in filing the petition to set aside exparte order dated 16.08.2018 passed by this Tribu n a I can be condoned.

¶17

In the result the IA.No.1B1Z/2022 is allowed.

¶18

The registry is directed to number the MAIR.91B /2022.

¶19

sd/-
Presiding Officer
/<br>n.RtlE poP\ t- -t
'-'' lsst o Rcarslrar--d{.+'a
DRI'1, HYDERABAD,

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., v. M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., v. M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Madhusudhan Babu Ponnekanti

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Green Aggri Implements

State Bank of India versus Sri Sangepu Siva Kumar

Kalakuntla Somaiah versus Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vow Interiors

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gattu Prabhakar Reddy