Disposed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Mr Muninarayanappa.M

DRT28 Apr 2025MA/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MA No.2 of 2025, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Bangalore held that an application under Section 22(g) is maintainable to set aside an ex parte final order. The court rejected the argument that the applicant's delayed challenge to a prior procedural mistake barred the current application.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application was admitted to be filed and posted for hearing on 02.05.2025.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Mr Muninarayanappa.M — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE Dated 28th day of April, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

MA No. 2 of 2025 in

¶4

OA No.1892 of 2020

¶5

Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation, “Bheeja Bhavan” 4^th & 5^th Floor, Hebbala, Bellary Road, Bangalore 560 024. Through its Managing Director … Defendant No.3/Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Hoskote Branch, D.No.2560, J.C. Circle, K.R. Road, Hoskote 562 114. Through its Branch Head, Mr M Suresh Kumar … Applicant/Defendant No.1

¶8

Mr Muninarayanappa M, S/o. Maleyappa, #46, Thaggali Hosahalli, Jadigenahalli Post, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka 562 114. … Defendant No.1/Defendant No.2

¶9

Mr Mahanthesh C, S/o. H.N. Chandrashekar, Old Post Office Road, Kumberpet, Hosakote 562114. Karnataka.

¶10

¶11

Also at:

¶12

No.3, Old Post Office Road, Kumbarpet, Hosakote, Karnataka 562 114. … Defendant No.2/Defendant No.3

¶13

Ld. Counsels on record appeared:

¶14

For Applicants : Shri Jagadeesha B.N. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Vignesh Shetty

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Miscellaneous Application ( in short “MA”) has been filed

¶17

with a prayer to set aside the final order dated 26.2.2024 passed in OA No.1892 of 2020 by which this Tribunal had allowed the application.

¶18

This Application is preferred by the 3^rd defendant in the OA. According to the applicant herein, they were wrongly arrayed as Defendant only for the reason that pledged movables were stored with them. It is also pointed out that, though Written Statement was filed by them on 16.8.2021, this Tribunal by the proceedings dated 5.4.2023 set them ex parte stating that chance for filing written statement of 3rd defendant closed.

¶19

¶20

Hence according to the applicant, this Tribunal had wrongly recorded that no written statement was filed by them and allowed the OA.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in the MA.

¶22

The applicant’s contention though appeared to be tempting to

¶23

hold that this Tribunal had committed a mistake in proceeding further recording that no written statement is filed, though actually applicant had filed their written statement as early as on 22.10.2021. It is to be noted that the said mistake in the proceedings happened on 5.4.2023 and admittedly applicant bank ’s evidence was taken on 15.2.2024. If at all applicant is really aggrieved, they were having sufficient time and opportunity to point out the mistake as the application is silent as to what transpired between 5.4.2023 and 15.2.2024. Had the applicant herein was diligent enough, they could have brought to the notice of the Tribunal and get the mistake corrected at appropriate time.

¶24

Another aspect to be noted is that section 22(2) (e) enables this

¶25

Tribunal to review its orders. The present application is filed under

¶26

¶27

section 22(g) which enables this Tribunal to set aside the order of dismissal of any order passed by it ex parte . From the final order passed by this Tribunal, it is clear that this Tribunal passed the order proceeding ex parte . Since this application is filed u/s.22(g) of the Act

¶28

to set aside the ex parte final order, this application is found maintainable.

¶29

Hence post this MA for hearing on 2.5.2025

¶30

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶31

Karur Vysya Bank v. Mr Muninarayanappa.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Mr Muninarayanappa.M

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 Komal Arora

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Umaxe Projects

Jacy Fazal versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

Sri Nagendra Jha versus Central Bank of India