AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
24.03.2025 I.A. No. 1758 of 2025: This application is filed, invoking Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, by Respondent No. 2 (State Bank of India) in which the Applicant/R2 has prayed for recalling of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by this Court and / or to pass an order modifying the said order.
Notice in the application. Ms. Vatsala Kak, Adv. has appeared for the Appellant/Non-applicant and accepted the notice in court and submitted that he does not want to file any reply to the application.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Adv. for R2 has submitted that till 06.02.2025 the Respondent No. 2 was not served. Respondent No. 2 was actually served on 28.02.2025 but of course no one had appeared on behalf of R2 on 10.03.2025. he has regreted the lapse on the part of Respondent No. 2 and submitted that the order passed by this Court on 10.03.2025 has been duly noticed/noted by the concerned authorities of the Bank, therefore, the present application has been filed in which the following averments have been made “18.
Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal on 10.03.2025. However, due to some internal gap and lack of coordination, no lawyer could be appointed by the bank to represent respondent no. 2 before this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for hearing scheduled on 10-03-2025. The Applicant expresses its unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Tribunal and would ensure to be present during the hearing on the next date of hearing. It is submitted that the applicant herein could not appear before this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal only on one date i.e. 10-03-2025 and express its sincere regret for the inconvenience caused to this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal.”
The averments made in the application has been verified by Uttara Mahto D/O Late. R. V. Mahto, aged about 50 years, being the Authorised Representative of State Bank of India, having its Branch at Stressed Asset Management Branch, SCO 99-107, First Floor, Sector 8C, Chandigarh.
Since, we have not found any error in our order, therefore, there is no ground for recalling of the said order but we can take on record the unconditional apology tendered by R2 for being not present on 10.03.2025 when the case was called out for hearing.
The unconditional apology tendered by State Bank of India is hereby accepted but the R2 is advised, if not warned, to set its house in order so that such situation may not occur in future because their absence from the court shall give a wrong signal as to why a public sector bank is not appearing in a case where its stakes are of crores of rupees. A copy of this order be sent to the CMD of R2 as well as to the Secretary, Department of Financial Service, Govt. of India for their perusal and record.