Allowed

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh v. Indian Bank

DRT28 Jan 2026MA/155/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MA 155/2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal of Patna considered an application by a borrower to set aside an ex-parte judgment dated 19.09.2023 arising from OA 19/2020, alongside a limitation petition to condone a delay of 682 days. The applicant alleged lack of notice and illness, while the bank produced tracking reports of service. The Tribunal rejected the limitation plea due to negligence and inaction but allowed the application on merits subject to a specific court charge deposit and security.

What did the court decide?

The M.A. is disposed of by allowing the application subject to the deposit of the certificate amount with interest component and costs as security within seven days. Upon such payment, the judgment of 19.09.2023 shall stand set aside and the O.A. restored.

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

MA 155/2024 [0]

DRT, PATN A

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, PATN A

¶5

Presiding Officer : Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

MA 155 of 2024

¶7

[Arising out of OA 19 of 2020]

¶8

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Ramashish Prasad Singh, R/o B- 104, Fourth Floor Priyadarshi Apartment, Boring Road, Patna - 800001.

¶9

.........Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Indian Bank, Main Branch, Patna. [Secured Creditor]

¶12

2.. M/s B.K. Industries Ltd., having its registered office at B-104, Fourth Floor Priyadarshi Apartment, Boring Road, Patna - 800001. ' [Borrower]

¶13

Mrs. Archana Raj, W/o Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Fourth Floor Priyadarshi Apartment, Boring Road, Patna – 800001.

¶14

[Borrower]

¶15

Mr. Ramashish Prasad Singh, S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad Singh, R/o B-104, Fourth Floor Priyadarshi Apartment, Boring Road, Patna – 800001. [Guarantor]

¶16

Mrs. Sunita Devi, W/o Mr. R.P. Singh, R/o B-104, Fourth Floor Priyadarshi Apartment, Boring Road, Patna – 800001.

¶17

[Guarantor & Mortgagor]

¶18

––Defendants

¶19

Present :

¶20

For the Applicant : Sh. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate

¶21

Dated: 28.01.2026

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Misc. Application has been filed by applicant under section 22 (2), (g) of the RDB Act for recalling the ex-parte judgment/order dated 19.09.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA 19/2020. Alongwith present MA, the applicants has also filed Limitation Petition by way of IA 228/2024 to condone the delay of 682 days.

/$'

MA 155/2024 [0]

DRT, PATNA

On the point of limitation it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant got the knowledge of the case was the case reserved for orders vide order. Accordingly, the applicant had filed IA 07/2023 for recalling the order dated 29.11.2022 and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.08.2023 holding that since there is no prayer to set the order dated 08.04.2022 hence the IA 07/2023 has no merit however one opportunity was granted to the defendants to file rebuttal evidence but this fact has not been communicated to the applicant herein by his counsel therefore, opportunity could not been availed. Due to illness the applicant could not diligently prosecute the case and only after service of judgment the applicant came to know that an adverse order has been passed against him. In the interest of justice, the delay of 682 days may be condoned.

¶29

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel for the applicant that due to continuous illness, the applicant could not receive the notices issued in OA 19/2020. However, the case was placed before the bench of Hon’ble Presiding Officer without recording any satisfaction by the Ld. Registrar regarding valid service of summon. It is further submitted that the OA 19/2020 was listed on 08.04.2022 without there being a date fixed for listing of the case wherein this Tribunal directed to proceed ex-parte against defendants. The applicant got the information regarding the pendency of OA through one of the advocate clerk and consequently, filed IA 07/2023 for recalling the order dated 29.11.2022 on the ground that no copy of Evidence has been supplied by the Bank but the IA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 16.08.2023 holding that since there is no prayer to set the order dated 08.04.2022 hence the IA 07/2023 has no merit however one opportunity was granted to the defendants to file rebuttal evidence but this fact has not been communicated to the applicant herein by his counsel therefore, opportunity could not been availed. Due to illness the applicant could not diligently prosecute the case and only after service of judgment on 20.04.2024 through post the applicant came to know that adverse order has been passed against him. The applicant has a very good case on merit and has a fair chance to succeed. Therefore, in the interest of justice judgment dated 19.09.2023 may be set aside and the case may be heard on merits.

¶30

On the contrary, Id. Counsel of respondent Bank submits that the OA 19/2020 was filed by the Bank for the recovery of a sum of Rs.28,56,46,232/- with further interest. In the said matter notices were issued to the defendants on 06.02.2020 by registered/speed post and the notices were delivered upon the defendants which was evident from the tracking report filed by the bank in OA 19/2020 but none of the defendants chose to appear in the matter to contest the case. Considering the proof of tracking report regarding service of notice, this Tribunal order to proceed

yP\

MA 155/2024 [0]

DRT, PATNA

ex-parte against defendants on 08.04.2022. The applicant himself admitted that an opportunity was granted by this Tribunal to file rebuttal evidence but the same was also not filed. Only to linger the recovery process, present MA has been filed by the applicant. No sufficient explanation of delay has been made by the applicant regarding delay in filing of present IVIA

¶36

Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and went through the record.

¶37

The present MA has been filed by the applicant for setting aside exparte judgment/order dated 19.09.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA 19/2020 with the contention that no notice was served/delivered to the applicant.

¶38

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basawaraj & Anr. Versus The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in [2013] 14 SCC 811 has held as under-

¶39

The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona pde on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.

¶40

Even on perusal of the limitation petition filed by the M. applicant, it appears that sufficient cause for delay has not been explained.

¶41

However, record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 23-1-2023 by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons was also published in the newspaper “Dainik Jagaran" on 05.09.2023 to appear and contest the case but none of the defendants appeared in the matter despite several opportunities.

¶42

As it has not been alleged by the applicant that the address mentioned on the summons was not correct and the address mentioned in

MA 155/2024 [0]

DRT, PATN A

the original application has also not been denied by the applicant. The postal dispatch of the summons along with the copies shall be presumed to be served in due course as required under section 27 of the General clauses Act. 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. Moreover, the tracking report filed in OA clearly shows that the notices were served upon defendants. Furthermore, before passing the judgment, an opportunity was granted to the applicant for filing rebuttal evidence on filing IA 07/2023 but the applicant failed to avail the said opportunity.

¶47

However in order to afford another opportunity to contest the case on merits the application may be allowed subject to deposit of the certificate amount without interest imposed thereunder within seven 15 days in concerned RP Case alongwith the security for the for the interest component and costs, to the satisfaction of concerned Recovery officer.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The instant M.A. is disposed of in terms of the para 11 of this order. In case the applicant makes payment in terms of aforesaid Para-11, the judgment and certificate date 19.09.2023 passed in O.A.19/2020, shall stand set aside and the O.A. shall be restored to its original number.

¶50

A copy of this order is given to the parties as well as to the Ld. Recovery Officer.

¶51

The order signed, dated and pronounced in open court today.

¶52

Consign the record.

¶53

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶54

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna Date : 28.01.2026

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Binod Kumar Singh v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh