AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 22.08.2025 whereby M.A. bearing No. 114/2021 filed in O.A. bearing No. 503/1999 titled as Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Urvashi Enterprises Limited & another was dismissed.
The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No. 503/1999 titled as Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Urvashi Enterprises Limited & another. The appellants were the defendants no.4 and 5 in the O.A. bearing No. 503/1999. The O.A. was decided vide judgment dated 24.09.2012 and the defendants including the appellants were directed to pay a sum of R.1,40,58,855/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 17.11.1999 till recovery. Further directions were also passed in the O.A.
The appellants filed M.A. bearing No.114/2021 under Section 22 (2) (g) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment dated 24.09.2012 and decree dated 26.09.2012 passed by the DRT-II, Delhi in O.A. bearing No. 503/1999. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the M.A.
Sh. Jalaj Srivastava, Counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants who were defendants no.4 and 5 before the DRT were never served with the summons/notices of the O.A. bearing no. 503/1999 and they have never filed any written statement. It is further stated that the appellants never authorized Sh. A Chauhan, Advocate to appear on their behalf in O.A. bearing No. 503/1999 before DRT. He further stated that the appellants have also never authorised Sh. B.S. Nagar, Advocate to appear on their behalf before DRT. In these circumstances, it is prayed and argued that the judgment dated 24.09.2012 be set aside qua the appellants.
The perusal of judgment dated 24.09.2012 whereby O.A. bearing No. 503/1999 was decided reflects that the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. The DRT-II, Delhi in the judgment dated 24.09.2012 also considered the defence as taken by the defendants including the appellants and thereafter decreed the O.A. bearing No. 503/1999.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 also reflects that the DRT considered the plea of the appellants that they came to know about the ex parte decree only on 14.09.20.19 when the notice of Recovery Certificate No. 283/2012 was affixed on the address of appellant no.1 i.e. defendant no.4 and the contention of the respondent no.1 that defendants including appellants have been duly served before filing their written statement before the DRT.
The DRT-II, Delhi in impugned order dated 22.08.2025 also referred the order sheet dated 14.09.2000, which reflects that Sh. B.S. Nagar, Advocate for the defendants appeared on behalf of the defendants including the appellants and also conceded the fact that written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants including appellants. The DRT-II, Delhi after considering all the contentions and relevant record vide order dated 22.08.2025 has dismissed the M.A. bearing No. 114/2021. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 is reproduced as under:
7.The main contention of the Ld. counsel of defendant no.4 & 5 is that the summons have not been received by the defendant no.4 & 5 as the defendant no. 5 does not reside on the address given by the applicant. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 4 & 5 have never engaged any Counsel and have not filed any written statement and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is against the facts of the case and liable to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. It is submitted that the defendants came to know about the exparte decree only on 14.09.2019 when the notice of the RC no.283/2012 was affixed on address of defendant no.4. On the other hand the Ld. counsel of the respondent has submitted that the defendants have been duly served and they have filed the written statement and Shri A.Chauhan, Advocate appeared for defendant no.2 to 6 and addressed their arguments and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2012 has decreed the OA no.503/1999, therefore, it is submitted that the contention of the applicant has no force. In this regard I have perused the record. From perusal of the record it is clear that in the order sheet dated 14.09.2000 of the OA no. 503/1999 it has been mentioned that Shri B.S.Nagar, counsel for the defendants appeared and it is also mentioned that the officer of the applicant bank has filed the original postal receipts, UPC along with affidavit. The same is taken on record. Therefore, it is clear that the notices were duly served upon the defendants and on behalf of all defendants Shri B.S.Nagar, Counsel appeared. On perusal of the record it is clear that written statement has been filed on behalf of all the defendants on 01.07.2001. The affidavit of evidence has been filed by Shri Pradeep Bansal, who is the director of the defendant no.1 company. It is submitted in the application that defendant no.4 & 5 does not know Shri Pradeep Bansal but Shri Pradeep Bansal is the director of the company i.e. defendant no.1, therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force. More over from perusal of the record it is clear that the contention of the defendants is that they came to know about the judgement only on 14.09.2019 when the notice of RC was affixed on the address of defendant no.4. On one side defendant no.5 is claiming that she does not reside on the said address and on the other side she is claiming that she came to know about the order on affixation of the notice of the RC. Therefore, the contention of the defendant no.4 & 5 is contradictory and cannot be believed. The defendant no.4 & 5 has filed the present application after expiry of more than 7 years. The ground on which they have got the knowledge of the final order does not appear to be acceptable. Therefore, the IA for the condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Application cannot be allowed. I have also gone through the judgements filed by both the parties but considering the above judgements the contentions of the MA applicant cannot be allowed.
After considering the relevant record and the arguments advanced by Sh. Jalaj Srivastava, Counsel for the appellants that the appellants were never served with the summons/notices of the case and never filed any written statement besides authorising the Counsel to appear before DRT are appeared to be misconceived and without any basis. The judgment dated 24.09.2012 and impugned order dated 22.08.2025 are clearly reflecting that the appellants were having the knowledge of the pendency of the O.A. bearing No. 503/1999 and rather they have participated in the proceedings arising out of said O.A.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without being devoid of any merit.