Omprakash Gupta and Anr. versus Canara Bank — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dismissed

Omprakash Gupta and Anr. v. Canara Bank

DRT11 Jun 2026MA/20/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance application dismissed in default as the applicant failed to explain validity grounds despite listing issues.

What the court decided

AI extract

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA

1

	Order Sheet (continuation)
Case No. MA arising out of	/20/2023 TSA/86/2013 OMPRAKASH GUPTA AND ANR Vs CANARA BANK
Date of the Order		Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
	Ld. Counsels Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya and Ms. Oindrila
11/06/202 6	Chatterjee appeared for Misc. Applicant. Ld. Counsel Mr. Onkar Ganguly appeared for Respondent Bank. Applicant has filed TSA/86/2013 challenging the Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the Sarfaesi Act dated 10/01/2013. It is stated by the Applicant that a notice was issued by the Ld. Tribunal, fixing the scheduled date as to when the matters of the DRT-I and DRT-III would be taken up. According to the schedule 25.07.2023 was fixed for DRT-III matters. According to the said schedule DRT-I matter was not supposed to be taken on 25.O7.2023 and it was supposed to be taken on 26.07.2023. The initial advocate on record was Ms. Arpita Mukherjee, who did not appear due to personal reason. Subsequently Ms. Oindrila Chatterjee, learned advocate was appointed to conduct the case. On the dated of hearing i.e. on 25/07/2023 Ms. Oindrila Chatterjee could not appear at the time of hearing when the matter was called on due to her illness. As a result, the matter was dismissed for default. Applicant prayed for recall of

Rina S.

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL 1, KOLKATA

2

Date of the Order	Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
	order dated 25.07.2023.
	Respondent Bank has filed objection to this MA contending
	that Application is not maintainable. Respondent Bank has strictly denied paragraph 5.1,5.2 and 5.3. Respondent Bank has filed
	cause list dated 25/07/2023 in which this SA was listed for
	hearing at Sl. No. 11. Respondent Bank stated that about change of the Advocate by the Misc. Applicants was not in the knowledge of the Defendant no. 1. Respondent Bank also denied paragraph 5.5,5.6 and 5.7,
	5.8 and 5.9. Respondent Bank also stated that Misc. Application
	filed for recall of the order dated 25.07.13 is baseless. misconceived, harassing, malafide and dragging the matter for
	indefinite period to jeopardize Bank's interest to recover the public money and the instant Misc. Application is not tenable as per law and prayed for dismissal of the SA. MA was heard on 27/04/2026.
	Respondent Bank has filed written notes of argument.
	When the Applicant stated about the notice of this Tribunal when on which date matter of DRT-3 will be taken up but has not filed
	any such notice. Rather the matter was listed on 25/07/2023 at
	serial no. 11 for hearing. Illness of conducting Advocate is not a

Date of the Order		Office action with date and dated Signature of Parties when necessary
	valid ground for setting aside the order of dismissal. This is a pretty old matter and Applicant was not serious for hearing. There is no merit in the MA. It is ordered as follows: MA/20/2023 arising out of TSA/86/2013 is dismissed on contest against the Respondent Bank.
	(Ambuja Mohan Das) Presiding Officer