Case Title:Intercon Recyclopolis Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.: Date of Order::14th December, 2023: Case No.:W.P.(C) 4971/2015:2023:DHC:9121-DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the ex-parte final order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Delhi in O.A. No. 59/2012, by which a recovery certificate of ₹12,18,67,058/- was issued against them. They filed an application (M.A. No. 81/2013) before the DRT for recall of the ex-parte order, claiming they were not served with summons. This application was dismissed. Their subsequent appeal to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) was also dismissed.
Procedural History:
20.09.2012 – Petitioners proceeded ex-parte in O.A. No. 59/2012 before DRT.
24.01.2013 – Ex-parte final order passed by DRT; recovery certificate issued.
14.10.2013 – DRT dismisses recall application (M.A. No. 81/2013).
27.03.2015 – DRAT dismisses appeal against the DRT’s dismissal.
14.12.2023 – Delhi High Court dismisses W.P.(C) 4971/2015.
Issues:
Whether the petitioners were properly served with notice in the original recovery proceedings, and if the ex-parte order and subsequent denial of recall by DRT and DRAT were justified.
Decision:
The High Court upheld the decisions of the DRT and DRAT. It held:
Petitioners were served via personal service (refused by them), publication in The Statesman, and through their counsel via service of reply in related proceedings.
The procedural requirement under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 to deposit 50% of the debt for appeal was not complied with.
The petition appeared to be an attempt to delay recovery proceedings.
Petition was dismissed as unmerited.
No comments:
Post a Comment