Sanjeev Shriya vs Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund and Ors

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 20 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Tribunal below in O.A. No. 1368/2019, whereby the appellant was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal below passed the order impugned on the ground that after perusal of the service report, the Tribunal was satisfied that the service of summon upon defendants No. 1 to 4 through Registered Post is sufficient and complete and defendant No. 5 had already appeared on previous date through counsel Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, on asking of the court, as he was representing the defendant No. 5 in another case as defendant No. 3, the paper book was supplied to him on that day to file written statement, but an IA No. 307/2020 was filed by Shri Maneesh Mehrotra stating therein that he was engaged in the said matter through one law firm M/s Wadhwa Law Chamber and after receiving the notice of the present case, he had informed the Law Firm about the same, but he has not received any instruction from the said firm to appear in the present case, therefore, a prayer was made that service upon the said defendant may directly be effected, but the said application has been rejected by the Tribunal below.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that since it was a specific application filed by Shri Maneesh Mehrotra that in spite of intimation sent to the Law Firm, no instruction has been received by him and he had directly moved the aforesaid application, which was turned down by the Tribunal below vide order impugned and the matter was directed to be proceeded ex-parte and right of the appellant to file written statement was closed. It is thus prayed that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that once Shri Maneesh Mehrotra put in appearance on behalf of defendant No. 5 and intimated the Law Firm, through which he was engaged in another case, then the said service would be deemed to be sufficient upon the said respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal below has rightly held the said service upon the defendant No. 5 in the present case to be sufficient. However, he could not clarify as to whether his engagement in another case on the basis of power of attorney given by Sanjeev Shriya was general or specific in particular case, therefore, it cannot be presumed to be a general power of attorney granted in favour of the Law Firm. Hence, the argument as raised by the counsel for the respondent-Bank cannot be accepted.

In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.02.2020 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal below for deciding it afresh most expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within three month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. No order as to costs