Allowed

M/S Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti v. Punjab National Bank

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2021CW/6221/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an ex-parte order of the DRT that had imposed a condition funding a deposit of Rs. 20 lakh as a pre-requisite for hearing an application to set aside ex-parte proceedings filed by the petitioners due to school lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. The High Court held the condition illegal and set aside the impugned order allowing the reply to be recorded.

What did the court decide?

The condition directing the deposit of Rs. 20 lakh was declared illegal and set aside; the reply was directed to be taken on record and proceedings continued.

M/S Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti Vs Punjab… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-6221/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6221/2021

¶5

M/s Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti, (Borrower) Ward No. 22, Saraswati Vidhya Vihar, School Gram Jangir, Bandikui Tehsil-Baswa, Dausa.

¶6

Shri Mukut Bihari Saini S/o Narain Lal Saini (Guarantor), Ward No. 22, Saraswati Vidhya Vihar, School Gram Jangir, Bandikui Tehsil-Baswa, Dausa.

¶7

Shri Lekhraj Saini S/o Narain Lal Saini, (Guarantor) 1041 Ward No. 23, Sikandra Ka Bas, Bandikui, Dausa.

¶8

Shri Chagan Lal Saini S/o Narain Lal Saini, (Guarantor) 100, Sikandra Ka Bas, Bandikui, Dausa.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Punjab National Bank, Through Authorized Officer, Sb-94, Jln Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.

¶12

Punjab National Bank, The Chief Law Officer, 2, Pnb House, 1St Floor, Tonk Road, Nehru Palace, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015

¶13

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R C Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

04/08/2021

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Punjab National Bank had filed an OA No.74/2020 as against the petitioners seeking recovery of an outstanding amount of Rs.2 crore. Notices were issued and the case came up before the DRT. After notices issued on 26.08.2020 remained unserved on defendants, fresh notices were issued and thereafter the Registrar

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CW-6221/2021]

¶20

drew presumption of service of summons on the defendants. The Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur vide order dated 06.04.2021 directed ex-parte proceedings to be drawn as against the defendants and the reply was closed. On 16.04.2021 an application was moved on behalf of the defendants praying for an order to recall and set aside the ex-parte order dated 06.04.2021.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that no reply was filed by the respondent-Bank, however, the Presiding Officer while noticing that the reason for non-appearance has been mentioned, in the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic, as lockdown of school, proceeded to direct that the reply shall be taken on record and the defendants would be allowed to argue the case only if the applicants deposit a sum of Rs.20 lac within a period of 15 days and without further giving any extension of time to deposit, the case was put up for compliance on 03.05.2021. The petitionersdefendants have assailed the said order dated 16.04.2021. Learned counsel submits that while deciding an application for setting aside ex-partie proceedings, such an onerous condition would not have been laid down by the Tribunal, moreso, as on account of Covid-19 second phase, the entire school stood under lockdown and no information could be received by the management relating to the case pending before the DRT.

¶22

Learned counsel submits that the Presiding Officer, DRT has failed to abide by the judicial norms and has without deciding the application for setting aside ex-parte order proceedings laid down conditional order.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that so far as Bank is concerned, it is interested in hearing of the O.A. regarding claiming of the amount from the petitioners-defendants.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-6221/2021]

¶26

The counsel admits that there was no reply filed to the application and the Bank nowhere asked to put such a condition as directed by the Presiding Officer.

¶27

I have considered the submissions.

¶28

The DRT while functioning as recovery Tribunal is required to maintain judicial norms and exercise restrained while passing orders which lay down onerous condition on any of the parties. By interim order recovery cannot be made. There is no provision for directing any party to deposit part of the amount before taking on record reply as per the Act. Thus, the condition mentioned in the order dated 16.04.2021 is clearly illegal and such condition therefore, is directed to be deleted from the order dated 16.04.2021.

¶29

On merits also, this Court finds that the reason for nonappearance of the petitioners-defendants was liable to be accepted and accordingly the application for setting aside ex-parte order was to be allowed. This court also notices that the Presiding Officer has allowed the application but has put certain conditions. Such conditions are therefore directed to hold illegal and are set aside. The reply shall now be taken on record and the proceedings shall continue before the DRT accordingly.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶32

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶33

NITIN /17

M/S Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saraswati Vidhya Vihar Samiti v. Punjab National 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

Sanjana Kanwar W/O Late Arvind Naruka Vs Narendra Singh Naruka S/O Hira Singh

Tribhuwan Meena S/O Shri Nathulal Meena Vs M/S Leonard Minerals and Exim Pvt. Ltd.

V.S. Telecom Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kailash Chand Kalkal S/O Shri Teja Ram Kalkal Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Saraswati Modern Senior Secondary School Bansur Alwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Central Warehousing Corporation Vs Commissioner of Customs, (Preventive), Jodhpur