O.A. No. 5 of 2004. Case: State Bank of India Vs Sri Amar Nath Roy and Anr.. Nagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals

Case NumberO.A. No. 5 of 2004
CounselFor Appellant: D.B. Das, Adv. and For Respondents: None
JudgesD.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer
IssueRecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Sections 19(1), 19(22), 19(24) and 22(2); General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 27; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 8, Rules 5, 5(2) and 10 - Order 9, Rules 7 and 13 - Order 22, Rule 4(4) - Rule 8(1) - Order 34
CitationI (2006) BC 162
Judgement DateJune 22, 2005
CourtNagpur Debt Recovery Tribunals


D.C. Thakur, Presiding Officer

  1. Mr. D.B. Das, the learned Advocate appears for the applicant Bank.

  2. Neither of the two defendants, each of whom is the marital partner of the other, has appeared in spite of the strenuous efforts taken by this Tribunal as well as by the learned Advocate on behalf of the initiating Bank. The learned Advocate has submitted before this Tribunal the three returned envelopes to prove sufficiently the compliance with the orders of this Tribunal. The learned Advocate has also submitted that service has been seriously tended to be made upon the non-appearing, non-participating defendants for the four consecutive times. On each and every occasion unsuccess has been the inevitable result. The similar bitter experience has also been with this Tribunal.

  3. The applicant Bank has initiated the present legal action against the above two defendants on and from Tuesday, January 22, 2004 for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,94,535.30 p. Like the other claim cases, this Tribunal has been, after being prima facie satisfied with the contents of the claim application filed under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (Act No. 51 of 1993), pleased to issue the judicial process upon the above two defendants with the sole object of having their specific replies as against the allegations as set out by the Bank in its above application. It has also been prescribed under Subsection (24) of Section 19 of the said Act that an application shall be dealt with and disposed of by the Tribunal like this Tribunal within aperiod of one hundred eighty days to be calculated from the date of receipt of the above application. The above has been the enacting Legislature's desire that has been solely dictated by the experience as gathered by the Central Legislature at the common law Court's level. While prescribing the above maximum time-limit for this "justice delivering system" to dispose of the above type of cases, the Legislature has perhaps disregarded the appearance of the defendants already brought on record and their participation. For the purpose of causing the due compliance with the traditional as well as statutorily prescribed principles of natural justice coupled with the concept of complete justice, this Tribunal has issued the summons upon the defendants with the expectation that they would not only appear in connection with OA No. 5 of 2004 but they would certainly meet each and every application allegation of the suing Bank. But the efforts of this Tribunal have been compelled to be the unsuccessful one. Though this Tribunal has been given the due protection, as far as the propriety and legality of the services are concerned, under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act No. 10 of 1897) which has been in fact meant for the real administration of justice.

  4. Many opportunities have been in fact given to the defendants to file the written statement, which is by its nature not only a cross pleading but also a pleading meant to resist any sort of application allegation. Unfortunately enough...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT