Jain Timer Co. Pvt. Ltd. And Ors vs Corporation Bank

P.K. Bhasin, J

I have heard Counsel for the appellants. In this case, the defence of the appellants' stands struck off. The grievance of the appellants is that before striking off the defence of the appellants, the learned Presiding Officer did not even think it appropriate to hear the appellants. The Bank had moved an application before the learned Presiding Officer and in that application a prayer was made for striking off the defence of the appellants/defendants. Without issuing any notice of that application to the appellants/defendants, the learned Presiding Officer proceeded to allow that application and struck off the defence and when the appellants moved an application for recall of that order that application also came to be rejected.

Learned Counsel has submitted that now matter before the DRT has been fixed for pronouncement of final order on 28.6.2018 but no date was fixed for oral arguments from either side and the parties were simply directed to file their written submissions along with a soft copy thereof. It is submitted that in case appellants are simply granted an opportunity to address oral arguments on 28.6.2018 itself for which they will not be asking any adjournment before the DRT and then to raise the same legal challenges which were being raised in the present appeal against the orders of the DRT striking off their defence without even hearing them, in the appeal against the final order if at all, the O.A of the Bank is decided against the appellants/defendants then this appeal can be dismissed as not pressed today itself. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I am of the view that while dismissing this appeal as not pressed, the DRT is directed to hear oral arguments of the appellants/defendants on 28.6.2018 and no adjournment shall be given for that purpose and, thereafter, DRT will be at liberty to pass any appropriate orders in the matter. DRT be communicated this order.