Allowed

Raju Kumar and Raju Kumar Gupta and Raju Prasad v. Hdfc Bank

DRT4 Apr 2025MA/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous application challenging an ex parte order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application conditional on the applicants depositing the certificate amount within one month to restore the original case for hearing, addressing allegations of forged signatures and lack of notice.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application is allowed subject to depositing the certificate amount within one month; the ex parte judgment of 14.07.2023 will be set aside upon fulfillment of this condition.

Raju Kumar and Raju Kumar Gupta and Raju Prasad… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

DRT,PATNA

MA 28/2024 [0]

DEBTSRECOVERYTRIBUNAL, PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

MA 28 of 2024

¶7

[Arising out of OA 377 of 2021]

¶8

1. MIs Raju Kumar @ Raju Kumar Gupta @ Raju Prasad - Guarantor

¶9

Jitendra Kumar - Guarantor

¶10

Parmendra Kumar @ Parmendra Kumar Prasad - Guarantor

¶11

All sons of Sri Surya Prasad @ Sri Suraj Prasad @ Sury Prasad, RIo Town _ 31, Naya Bazar, Bailhata, District - Siwan, Pin Code - 841226

¶12

.........Applicants

¶13

Versus

¶14

HDFC Bank Ltd., Bimla Sadan, Holding No.801/432, Ward no. 37, Exhibition Road, Patna, Pincode - 800001 Through its Manager.

¶15

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, S/o Mr. Surya Prasad @ Suraj Prasad, RIo Town - 31, Naya Bazar, Bailhata, District - Siwan, Pin Code - 841226.

¶16

3. MIs Jai Mata Ji Traders, through its Proprietor aforesaid Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Address aforesaid.

¶17

-----Respondents

¶18

Present: For the Applicant : Raju Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : None

¶19

Dated: 04.04.2025

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This misc. application has been filed by applicant under section 22(G) H of the ROBAct for recalling the aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 14.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA 377/2021. During pendency of the applicants have filed IA 87/2024 for condonation of delay in filing of present MA. Further, the applicants have filed supplementary affidavits by way of IA 09/2025. 2. Despite service of notice to the respondents asevident from the tracking report filed by the applicants with the affidavit of service, the respondents ~::/

DRT, PATNA

MA 28/2024 [0]

including the bank neither appeared nor filed any reply. Hence, the argument of the applicant has been heard.

¶26

On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants have no knowledge with regard to OA 377/2021 filed by the Bank. The applicants came to know about the judgment dated 14.07.2023 in the month of September, 2023 upon rumor in the family. Accordingly, the applicants filed a present MA on 05.01.2024. The delay is unintentional and not deliberate. Therefore, the delay may be condoned.

¶27

It is submitted by the Id. Counselfor the applicant that the respondent no.2 Dharmendra Kumar took the loan for respondent nO.3 M/s Jai Mata Ji Traders from respondent Bank and mortgaged the joint landed property with the Bank without consent of other shareholder of the property. It is further submitted that another shareholder i.e. applicant no.1 to 3 has also been made guarantor to the loan account in question fraudulently with the collusion of the then Bank Manager. The applicants have never made any signature on the loan documents. All the signatures of applicants depicted on loan documents appear to be forged by only one man. The applicant no.2 has also filed a Criminal Case against the then Bank Manager in the Court of CJM, Siwan bearing Complaint Case No.2197 of 2023. The Recovery Proceeding as well as SARFAESI Proceedingsimultaneously initiated by the respondent bank in the matter. The respondent no. 2 has only 1/4 th Share in the property in question. No notice was served/delivered to applicants either issued by respondent bank or by this Tribunal to the applicants. Therefore, it is prayed to recall the judgment/order dated 14.07.2023 passed in OA 377 of 2021 and applicants may be given opportunities to contest the case.

¶28

Heard Ld.Counselfor the applicant and gone through the record.

¶29

For the purpose of setting aside an ex parte decree or order or for rehearing of an appeal, the limitation period for filing an application is 30 days from the date of the order; and for the caseswhere summon was not served, the limitation will be counted from the date of knowledge.

¶30

In this casethe final order dated 14.7.2023 was sought to be recalled. It is submitted that she came to know about the order dated 14.07.2023 in the month of September, 2023 but the present MA hasbeen filed on 05.01.2024.

¶31

The present MA has been filed by the applicant for recalling the asideexparte judgment/order dated 14.07.2023 passedby this Tribunal in OA377/2021 with the contention that the applicants have not executed any loan documents with the Bank against the loan account in question and signature of the applicants depicted on the loan documents appears to be forged. It is also allegedthat no notice was served upon the applican s.

DRT, PATNA

MA 28/2024 [0]

On perusal of record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 27-01-2022 by Registered/Speed post. The address mentioned therein and in the OA has not been denied. They happen to be brothers of the respondent no. 2. Apart from this summons was also published in the newspapers "Aa]" and "The Times of India" on 22.03.2022 to appear and contest the case but none of the parties appear in the matter despite several opportunities.

¶36

As it has not been alleged by the applicant that the address mentioned on the summons was not correct and the address mentioned in the original application hasalso not been denied by the applicant. The postal dispatch of the summers along with the copies shall be presumed to be served in due course as required under section 27 of the General clausesAct. Similar presumption has to be drawn regarding the true and free copy issued by the Tribunal after the judgment in the original application. Again it is important to mention that there is nothing on record to contradict the above presumption.

¶37

10In view of the above circumstancesthere is no sufficient ground to allow this application. But considering the grounds of alleged forgery, the applicants may be given a chance of hearing subject to the condition that the applicants deposit the certificate amount in the respondent Bankwithin one month. That deposit shall be subject to the final outcome of the O.A. after restoration, if any.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The instant M.A. is allowed subject to the condition that the applicants will deposit the certificate amount in the respondent Bankwithin one month.

¶40

If the amount is deposited by the bank within the stipulated time, the Judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed in OA will stand set aside. The OA will be restored and the deposit shall be subject to the final outcome of the O.A. after restoration, if any.

Consignthe record.

~ ~\v....../>

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date: 04.04.2025

Raju Kumar and Raju Kumar Gupta and Raju Prasad v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Kumar and Raju Kumar Gupta and Raju Prasad v. Hdfc Bank

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

Similar cases

Rajeev Thyagarajan versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/s Real Infra

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Vansh Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Abhisheniya Dredging Private Limited

Yes Bank versus Rishab Sachan

Central Bank of India versus M/S Aroma Designer Dresses