Ms. Archna Deo vs HDFC Bank Limited & Ors.

The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No.833/2017 titled as HDFC Bank V. VHK Hospitality Solutions Private Limited & others against the defendants including the appellant as defendant no.3 which was stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi. DRT proceeded against the defendants, including the defendant no.3 ex parte vide order dated 10.02.2020 as defendants failed to appear despite service. DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated 12.02.2020 allowed the O.A. and directed the defendants including the appellant being the defendant no.3 to pay jointly and severely Rs.11,24.257.61 along with other charges.

The appellant being aggrieved filed an application bearing TMA No.32/2022 for setting aside the order dated 10.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 along with I.A. No.1910/2022 for condonation of delay in filing the MA bearing TMA No.32/2022.

The Advocate for the appellant stated that the defendant no.1 was a company of which the defendant no.2 and the defendant no.3 were directors. However, the husband of the defendant no.3 was looking after and managing the affairs of the defendant no.1 company on behalf of defendant no.3 i.e. the appellant. The defendant no.2 after forging signatures of defendant no.3 had obtained the loan from the respondent no.1 in the year 2015 which was not within the knowledge of the appellant being the defendant no.3. The appellant being the defendant no.3 came to know about the pendency of O.A. bearing No.833/2017 much after as the summons were never served upon the defendant no.3. The counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments also referred the service affidavit dated 09.07.2018 deposed by Ms.Tanwika Kumari, authorized legal officer of respondent no.1 and another affidavit which was also deposed by Ms.Tanwika Kumari, authorized legal officer of the respondent no.1. The counsel for the appellant after referring the contents of these two affidavits stated that the appellant being defendant no.3 was never served with the summons of O.A. bearing No.833/2017. He also argued that the appellant being the defendant no.3 was an illiterate lady and was not aware about the affairs of the defendant no.1.

The perusal of impugned order reflects that the defendant no.1 was a company of which the defendants no 2 & 3 were directors. The defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 were the co-borrowers for the loan advanced by the respondent no.1. The DRT-II, Delhi in the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 clearly observed that the appellant being the defendant no.3 was having the knowledge about the pendency of O.A. No.833/2017 and she was served by way of affixation. The perusal of affidavit as referred by the counsel for the appellant also reflects that the appellant being the defendant no.3 was served by way of affixation and the defendant no.2 also received the summons on behalf of defendant no.3.

There is no merit in the contention as argued by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant being defendant no.3 had never authorized defendant no.2 to receive the summons and she was not aware about the affairs of the defendant no.1. The service upon the defendant no.2 can be taken as the valid service upon the appellant being the defendant no.3 as both the defendant no.2 and 3 were the directors of the defendant no.1 and moreover the defendant no.3 was also served by way of affixation.

After considering all facts, this Tribunal finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order which requires any interference by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.