Allowed

Archana Institute of v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Madras HC3 Mar 2015CRP/4282/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227, the Madras High Court set aside an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that was passed without hearing the petitioner. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal with directions to grant a hearing. Petitioner given two weeks to file written submissions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.9.2013 set aside and matter remanded to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to be heard after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

Archana Institute of Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2015

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL

¶7

C.R.P. (PD) No. 4282 of 2013

¶8

Archana Institute of Technology

¶9

rep. By its Correspondent

¶10

Mrs. Archana Kumari, No.7 Salem Main Road, Thimmapuram 635 112, Krishnagiri District.

¶11

Archana Educational & Charitable Trust, rep. By its Managing Trustee Mrs. Archana Kumari, No.7 Salem Main Road, Thimmapuram 635 112, Krishnagiri District. 3. Mrs. J. Archana Kumari .. Petitioners

¶12

Vs.

¶13

H.D.F.C. Bank Limited “Ceebros” No.110 Nelson Manickam Road, 4^th floor, Aminjikarai, Chennai 600 029, rep. By its Authorised Signatory Mr. P. Kasi Viswanathan.

¶14

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai. (R2 impleaded as party respondent vide order dated 12.2.2014 in crp No.4282/2013) ...Respondents

¶15

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 05.9.2013 passed in I.A.No. 357 of 2013 in O.A.No. 219 of 2013 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai.

¶17

For Petitioner :Mr. R. Srinivas

¶18

For Respondents : No Appearance – R1 Mr. T. Sundara Rajan - R2 - - - - -

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J., )

¶21

This civil revision petition is filed against the dated 05.9.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai, in I.A.No. 357 of 2013 in O.A.No. 219 of 2013.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of one or other reasons, the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and therefore, one opportunity of hearing may be afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal and put forward his case and thereafter, the Tribunal may be directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. He further undertakes that no adjournment will be sought by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that though the petitioner was given ample opportunities to participate in the proceedings and put forward his case, however, in view of the facts of the case, if further opportunity of hearing is afforded before the Tribunal, the Bank has no objection.

¶25

In view of that, without making any observation on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the Tribunal to consider the case afresh and pass final orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if not already executed. The petitioner is further granted two weeks time to file a written submission and thereafter, the matter may be heard on day-to-day basis and be concluded within a period of four weeks .

¶26

This civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

03.03.2015

ra Index: Yes/No

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai.

¶32

¶33

SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI,J.

and

M. VENUGOPAL,J.

CRP(PD) No.4282 of 2013

¶38

Date: 03.03.2015

Archana Institute of v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Institute of v. Hdfc Bank Ltd.

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

Mukundan, Vs The Chennai Corporation

Dr. K.Rajesh Kumar, Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sundaram Bnp Paribas Home Vs The District Magistrate/

State of Tamilnadu Rep by Vs R. Nagasamy

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs R.Malarvili

The Management of Tata Vs Selvinth Gnanesh Joshua