Dismissed

Shree Guru Jambheshwar Petrol Pump v. State Bank of India

DRT23 May 2025MA/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application to restore a memo of appeal dismissed for non-appearance on 25.04.2025. The Applicant claimed inadvertent absence, while the Respondent Bank sought possession of secured assets the following day. The Tribunal found no merit in the restoration plea.

What did the court decide?

Application MA No. 48 of 2025 for restoration of MA No. 121 of 2024 is dismissed.

Shree Guru Jambheshwar Petrol Pump versus State Bank… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ITEM NO.74

¶3

MA/48/2025

¶4

SHREE GURU JAMBHESHWAR PETROL PUMP Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶5

23.05.2025

¶6

Present: Sh. Sardavinder Goyal Advocate for the Applicant (MA) (through VC) Sh. Sanjeev K. Arora Advocate for the Respondent Bank

¶7

This order will dispose of MA No. 48 of 2025 for restoration of MA No. 121 of 2024 which was filed for restoration of SA No. 192 of 2023.

¶8

Applicant had filed SA No. 192 of 2023 which was dismissed in default on 31.05.2024. Thereafter, Applicant had filed MA No. 121 of 2024 for restoration of SA No. 192 of 2023. In the meantime, Applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing CWP No. 17944 of 2024. Vide order dated 31.07.2024, Hon’ble High Court ordered that till the restoration application is decided, the Applicant would not be dispossessed. Thereafter, MA No. 121 of 2024 was also dismissed in default on 25.04.2025. On 02.05.2025, Applicant filed MA No. 48 of 2025 for restoration of MA No. 121 of 2024.

¶9

Applicant in MA No. 48 of 2025 has alleged that MA No. 121 of 2024 was listed for hearing at Serial No. 82 on 25.04.2025. The associate of the learned counsel for the Applicant was physically present in the Court Room. However, the Applicant could not come present physically because of the death of his real sister. On 25.04.2025, when the cases were heard serial wise, the associate of learned counsel was present in the Court. Since the time of the Court was about to be over, then mentioning started. When it was inquired from the concerned Reader of the Court, after the Court time was over, he informed that the case has been dismissed in default. It is stated that in case the MA was taken out of turn, counsel for the Respondent Bank should have informed the counsel for the Applicant. The associate of the counsel for the Applicant was present in Court and he would have recorded his presence. There was no reason for not recording his presence. It is stated that everything has happened due to some inadvertent error. On 25.04.2025, after

¶10

MA/48/2025 SHREE GURU JAMBHESHWAR PETROL PUMP Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA 2

¶11

coming to knowledge of the dismissal of the case, it was informed to the Bench that counsel is present in Court and a request was made to restore. It is stated that it would cause grave prejudice to the Applicant in case MA No. 121 of 2024 is not restored. It is stated that MA No. 48 of 2025 be allowed.

¶12

In reply to MA No. 48 of 2025, the Bank has alleged that on 25.04.2025, MA No. 121 of 2024 was called many times. But none appeared on behalf of the Applicant. It is denied that associate of the counsel for the Applicant was present in this Tribunal on 25.04.2025. Since, nobody was present on behalf of the Applicant, MA No. 121 of 2024 was dismissed. Bank has issued him a notice for taking the possession of the secured asset on 26.05.2025. The Applicant has again approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing CWP No. 14787 of 2025 which was listed for 23.05.2025. The motive of the Applicant is only to obtain stay order from this Tribunal or from Hon’ble High Court to defeat the efforts of the Defendant Bank to take over the possession of the secured asset. The Applicant wants to prolong the matter one way or the other. The intention of the Applicant is mala fide . Accordingly, it is stated that the application is dismissed.

¶13

Sh. Sardavinder Goyal counsel for the Applicant has argued that the absence of the counsel for the Applicant on 25.04.2025 was not intentional. In fact, his counsel was present. He kept on waiting for his turn. Later on, he came to know that MA No. 121 of 2024 has been dismissed.

¶14

6. Per contra , Sh. Sanjeev K. Arora, counsel for the Bank has argued that on 25.04.2025, this case was called many times. Nobody put in appearance. Left with no alternative, this Tribunal dismissed MA No. 121 of 2024. It is stated that in fact, the Bank has issued a possession notice for 26.05.2025. Applicant wants to obtain a stay order by ‘hook or by crook’. Accordingly, it is stated that the application be dismissed.

¶15

I have considered that rival contentions.

¶16

At the outset, this deserves to be mentioned that the universal practice of this Tribunal is not to dismiss any case in default in routine. Every case, wherein the Applicant or his counsel do not appear, is called many a time. It is only when a party or his counsel

¶17

MA/48/2025 SHREE GURU JAMBHESHWAR PETROL PUMP Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA 3

¶18

do not appear, at the end of the Court timings, the case is dismissed in default. In the case in hand also, this MA was called many a time.

¶19

The order dated 25.04.2025 reads as under:-

¶20

“Case called many times. However, nobody is present on behalf of the Applicant. In view of this, the MA is dismissed in default. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

¶21

This is apparent from the above that despite the fact that this case was called many times on 25.04.2025, nobody put in appearance. Admittedly, the Bank intends to take possession of the secured asset on 26.05.2025. The motive of the Applicant is somehow to obtain the stay order from this Tribunal by ‘hook or by crook’. I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present MA No. 48 of 2025. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶22

Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated: 23.05.2025 Presiding Officer (RBY) DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)

Shree Guru Jambheshwar Petrol Pump v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Guru Jambheshwar Petrol Pump 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Pratap

Ms Rinku Agriculture Farm versus the Citizen Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Ms Zimidara Agri Store versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Canara Bank versus Baljit Kaur

Sri Kamal Saha Prop Ms Netai Computer versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus Santosh Kumar Sharma