SUNIL PODDAR Vs. CHAIRPERSON DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel representing the respondent-bank.

(2.) The brief relevant facts are that the respondent-bank, i.e., Union Bank of India, advanced a loan to a company known as M/s. Adhunik Detergent Ltd. For that loan, the petitioners who were then directors of that company stood guarantors. In view of the guarantee, the petitioners were also made defendants in the claim by the bank before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The claim is alleged to have been decreed ex parte by the DRT on December 15, 2000. The petitioners moved an application for setting aside that ex parte order. The application was rejected by the DRT by order dated December 20, 2001.

(3.) The above order dated December 20, 2001, was challenged by the petitioners in an appeal before the DRAT.