S.J. LAKSHMINARASIMHA SHASTRY Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent has instituted O.A. No. 39 of 2010, vide Annexure-A, against the petitioner, in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, at Bangalore. The petitioner being the respondent in the said O.A., filed written statement on 8-4-2010, vide Annexure-B. An application vide Annexure-C, under Section 31-A read with Section 22(2)(h) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), was filed by the petitioner, on 28-4-2010, seeking rejection of the O.A., to which statement of objections vide Annexure-D was filed by the respondent-bank on 24-7-2010. An application vide Annexure-E, seeking amendment of O.A. having been filed by the Bank, on 5-12-2013, the Tribunal allowed the same on 23-1-2014. On the same day, an application vide Annexure-G, seeking recalling of the order passed earlier, allowing the application filed for amendment, having been dismissed vide order as at Annexure-K, these writ petitions were filed on 27-3-2014, to quash the orders, as at Annexures-F and K.

(2.) Heard the learned Advocates on both sides and perused the writ petition record.

(3.) To the application filed by the bank on 5-12-2013, statement of objections having been filed and in the absence of the learned Advocate for the petitioner herein, an order dated 23-1-2014, as at Annexure-F was passed. Order passed vide Annexure-F, allowing amendment application, is neither a considered nor a reasoned order. An application having been filed during the later part of the day, seeking recalling of the order passed in the earlier session, by adopting a hyper technical approach, the order as at Annexure-K has been passed. When the order as at Annexure-F was passed, concededly, there was no representation for the petitioner. The reason for non-appearance, when the said order was passed, has been stated in the application filed to recall the said order. The Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, ought to have adopted the pragmatic approach and granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein. Instead, by adopting an unreasonable approach, which is irrational, the order as at Annexure-K has been passed. If the impugned orders herein are not set aside, there will be failure of justice.