SAKTHI TRANSPORTS Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the order, dated 12/10/2015, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in M.A.No.52 of 2014 and consequently direct the third respondent, to dispose of Transferred Application No.539 of 2002, along with the counter claim, made by the petitioners, on merits.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this case are as follows:-

(3.) On account of the demise of the defendants 5 and 11, their legal heirs were impleaded. At the time of impleading the legal heirs of the defendants 5 and 11, defendants 1 and 2 have prolonged the process for more than 3 years. But they have not filed any reply statement. Therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, by its order, dated 12/12/2006, forfeited the right to file reply statement by the defendants 1 and 2. Thereafter, on 13/2/2007, the evidence on the side of the defendants was also closed. Even though the legal heirs of the third respondent was impleaded, during December 2007, they did not file any written statement. Respondent Bank moved an interim Application in I.A.No.805 of 2008, seeking attachment of certain properties in the hands of the Bank and the same was allowed. The defendants therein had moved I.A.Nos.206 and 207 of 2009 for setting aside the ex parte order passed earlier and for reopening the case. The Debts Recovery Tribunal opined that the Tribunal was not inclined to hear the said applications, unless the defendants deposits 25% of the claim amount in O.A., within fifteen days from 6/4/2011. If the said amount was deposited, the defendants will be permitted to file their written statement, duly supported by the proof affidavit and documents, if any, which on confirmation with regard to deposit having been made will be taken on record and opportunity will be given to the defendants to make their submissions on their defence.