RAMA SINHA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) dated 15.07.2014 in Misc Appeal Nos. 326 - 327/2012 dismissing their appeal. The appeals were preferred against the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) dated 31.07.2012. The petitioners contended that the ex parte final order rendered earlier required to be set aside, since they were not duly served in accordance with law.

(2.) THE brief facts are that the respondent Canara Bank instituted proceedings being Original Applications (OAs) 137/2002 and 138/2002 against various borrowers and guarantors i.e. M/s Eider PWI Paging Ltd., M/s Eider Technologies Ltd. and Eider Financial Services Ltd., Sh.A.K.Sinha, and the present petitioners i.e. Ms. Rama Sinha and Mr.Sanjay Sinha. The addresses given of Sh.A.K.Sinha and that of the present two petitioners were common, i.e. House No.667, Sector -6 Panchkula as is disclosed in the application. The service of summons was apparently accepted by one Sh. Hardam Singh. The petitioners were not represented in the proceedings. Recovery proceedings ultimately culminated in final order dated 25.08.2004. The present petitioners moved applications bearing M.A.Nos.168/2003 and 94/2004 for recalling of the ex parte orders contending that summons were not duly served.

(3.) THE DRT noticed that the circumstance of receipt of summons by one Sh.Hardam Singh, pursuant to which the petitioners Ms.Rama Sinha and Mr.Sanjay Sinha entered appearance and were represented, was not denied. The petitioners' contention in appeal, in addition to the points urged before the DRT, was with respect to Order 5 Rule 9 -A(2), of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). In this regard, it was urged that the mode of personal service in the present case had not been applied by it. These contentions were, however, rejected.