Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Hdfc Bank

DRT22 Jun 2026RA/12/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA 132/2019, the DRT dismissed an applicant's Review Application under Rule 5-A. The court held that mere non-service of notice constitutes a ground for a miscellaneous application to set aside an ex-parte order, not a review under Rule 5-A. The court applied Section 27 of the General Clauses Act to presume service and dismissed the application for lack of maintainability and no apparent error

What did the court decide?

Provision of review of an order dated 04.02.2023 dismissed the review application holding it legally not maintainable and lacking merit.

Ashok Kumar Gupta versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

RA 12 of 2023 IOI

DRT. PATN A

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

R. A. Case No. 12 of 2023

¶7

IArising out of OA Case no. : 132 of 20191

¶8

Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Nagina Gupta, R/o Village Daraolai, P.S. - Nuoan, District – Karniur Bhabhua.

¶9

...... Applicant

¶10

¶11

HDFC Bank, Bimla Sadan, Holding No. 801 432, Ward No. 37, Exhibition Road, Patna. Bihar.

¶12

M/s Guru Kripa Trading company represented through its proprietor namely Santosh Kumar Gupta Address – At Chandni Chowk, Mohinia P.0. + P.S. – Mohinia. District - Kaimur (Bhabhua).

¶13

Santosh Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ram Nagina Gupta, R/o Village Daraolai. P.S. – Nuoan, District - Kamiur Bhabhua

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Present :

¶16

For the Applicant Sh. Nand Kishore Singh, Advocate For the Respondents None

¶17

Dated: 22.06.2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 04.02.2023 passed in OA 132/2019 by this Tribunal.

¶20

It is submitted by the Id. Counsel of the applicant that the applicant is guarantor to the loan account in question. The respondent bank filed a present OA for the recovery of its outstanding dues before this Tribunal but no notice was served upon the applicant. Therefore, the applicant could not appear before this Tribunal to defend his case. The notice was issued during the Covid period hence, the applicant was completely unaware with regard to proceeding pending before this Tribunal. The loan was taken by the respondent no.3 who is proprietor

RA 12 of 2023 IOI

DRT, PATN A

of respondent no.2. The applicant has given merely the guarantee to the loan being brother of respondent no.3.

¶25

Neither any respondent is present for respondents Nos.2&3 nor on any reply to the review application has been filed. On perusal of present case record, it appears that vide order dated 19.12.2025 Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal reported that even after many opportunities the applicant has neither filed a service report of notice upon respondent nor fresh steps have been taken for service upon respondents.

¶26

Considered the contentions of the applicant bank and perused the case records.

¶27

The present Review Application has been filed by the applicant under rule 5-A of the Debts Recovery Tribunal [Procedures] Rules 1993. The rule 5-A reads as under-

¶28

“[1] Any party considering itself aggrieved by an order made by the Tribunal On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records desires to obtain a review of the order made against him, may apply for a review of the order to the Tribunal which had made the order.

¶29

[2] No application for review shall be made after the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of the order and no such application shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by an affidavit verifying the application.

¶30

[3] Where it appears to the Tribunal that there is no sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application [but where the Tribunal is of opinion that the application] for review shall be granted, it shall grant the same.”

¶31

This present review petition has been filed for setting aside ex-parte judgment/order dated 04.02.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA 132/2019 with the contention that no notice was served/delivered to the applicants. No mistake or error apparent on the face of record has been pointed out in the application. The nature of the dispute as pointed out, could be raised by way of miscellaneous application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and the certificate, if any. It is not covered under the review application.

RA 12 of 2023 IOI

DRT, PATN A

However, record of the original application shows that the summons was sent to the defendants/borrowers on 16-3-2019 by Registered/Speed post. Apart from this summons were also published in the newspaper “Indian Express" on 02.08.2019 and in the “Dainik Jagaran" on 03.08.2019 to appear and contest the case but none of the defendants appeared 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 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 .

¶37

Neither this application discloses any arithmetical, clerical error apparent on the face of record, nor has it been pointed out during the course of arguments. As such this petition for review is not legally maintainable and dismissed accordingly.

¶38

As such this petition has no merits and is dismissed, accordingly.

¶39

Order signed, sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 22ND Day of June, 2026.

¶40

Dictated & corrected by me.

¶41

¶42

[KaushalendraYadav] Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Gupta 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

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) versus Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

State Bank of India versus Yogesh Gupta

Union Bank of India versus Vandana Sukhija and Others

M/S Hotel Ocimum Palace versus Punjab National Bank

Shailendra Kumar versus Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank

State Bank of India versus Shri Binod Thocker