IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT"'B'_f:\NG»§«VL'C5Rfi'.4--"V'
DATED THIS THE 30*" DAY"'O'F< A'_U"(3U.S"E:;,:"2.0 I01?
BEFOR :E.__ A V L' " 2
THE HC)N'BLE MR. VIUETICE PIN/'IV fi4A'L:.IT§'::HvTH 'V
WRIT PETITION NOA;'3'25:?*?.']2Q_O9 ('t3"rv2A-DHT)
BETWEEN:
'E'a'i'}'g';"a':L!flre"::E+.:-'V12
Sri.V.Tha: ranat§jA O_:'V.Ve.éf'éLs:w;1m"y,'V
Aged 3.abcg,~:~t_V49 ',(ee;_r _
R/c?t"U3~«128;i'_V2"d'-CEOSSV, 'W .Ma_sn,
Gov»Ith';i%_iT:_ana'q'ar, :'3r'i.rampugram,
PEETITIONER
(By SELB[SJeevérI'VII'm_é'r,"'.Advocate)
_
7Cari'ar_a
--._Si*aan_thE.nagar Branch,
'...VNo.v."18';~.K~;H.Road, '
Simjrathinagar,
v_Bang'alore - 27,
.. 'Rep by its Senior Manager.
'FT'!/sfihagyalakshmi Dhali Industries,
No.10/68, Prathiba Indi. Estate,
Yeiecharaahalli,
Kanakapura Road,
Bangaiore -- 78.
of delay{_a'nd et.<;.'
to
3. Sri.V.R.Ramesh Babu,
S/0 V.A.Ramasubbaiah Shetty,
R/a 1321, Anugraha 27"" Main,
24"' Cross, BSK II Stage,
Bangalore -- 70.
4. Smt.V.R.Asha Ramesh,
W/0 \/.R.Ramesh Babu, V . -
R/a 1321, Anugraha, 27" l'43_ain,.._} '
24"' Cross, BSK II Stage, ' ' '
Bangalore - 70.
(By Sri.M.R.Shashidar,."AdvoCa'te:_:f0'r"R.1--ah'sent}-hi
This Writ Petition is"fi'led7iind'err_ Al"t"£:tles 226 and 227
of the Co'nVstiii;_u;tionV"ofinidia"pray'i§ng to set aside the order
dated...3.7_'G9 ;513,S.Sed_: by Debts' Recover Tribunal in IA
No.2:940/085"inMIR 1-2433?/08,-- vide Ann--F & consequently
allow--the iapplicaizion.fiiied"-by the petitioner for condonatéon
This Wnrit-rPetit'i.on coming on for Preliminary Hearing
. V. flroisp, this day, the Court made the folE0wing:--
ORDER
.-.1:’he”i’5′ respondent filed O.A.No.144/2006 before the
we {)ebts”‘F§ecovery Tribunal at Bangalore seeking to recover a
of Rs.28,22,646/– along with interest. By the order
“dated 30.07.2007, it was allowed and the def were
M3-
directed to pay the said amount along with ihtegrest.
Thereafter, a Misceilaneous Petition was _,_t’h.e
petitioner seeking to recall the said order… tjhenre
a delay in filing the recalling if-lpplgi1c4atfio”ng,
under Section 5 of Lirriitatipn4Act «wasaisogVfi–‘l-ied:’seel€rin”gi
condone the delay in filing ‘tlie.V’irecaliiVng_ ‘application. The
Tribunal by the v’ordevr’~-..MdateVd’l “oa.o?.2oo9
dismissed the application of delay in
filing the reca’l’l’i’n.g’ appiic:al;§’on.”‘ Ele.nce__tfhe present petition.
._ The’:..”‘:ilearrl’e-didV…Counsel appearing for the
petitioneficontendsl~-th’a.t’:the impugned order is bad in law
l__i.abie tolllbe——–set aside. He contends that as the
l vipjetiti’o.n’er”‘i-alas suffering from medical ailments, he. could
‘not fi.lle”Vli:’ittre recalling application in time. Medical
certi~fic’ates were also produced along with the application
lVVf;o”r~«’.condonation of deiay. He specifically pleads that the
Vlgnotice of the OA was not served on him at all. He
contends that the signature of the petitioner is always in
err»
-4-
Kannada whereas the acknowledgment with regard to
sufficiency of service has been signed in English. He
further contends that the same has been a
stranger who is not known to the petitioner at§a”|’l’.’
3. The learned Counsel appear”-inig,:V=f.or’d
respondent No.1 is absent. Respfoindentsg ‘
served have remained absent. Notic-edto respond’.en-t’%J.o’.’2u
has been dispensed with.
._ — Vfiflis:’~sgufftc’é’ent—cause as sought to be explained
by the”p.etiitiVon’er”i.s was suffering from medical
aiyglrnents wh”i’::bg:’pre\:/ented him from fiking the recalling
‘ap”p:ic’atEo.n}A.._It is further contended that the notice of OA
_wg_g on him at all. The reason accorded by the
pe’titio..nerv”appears to be reasonable and would constitute
as sufficient cause for the delay.
24″
5. When a party makes a ground that ..thej’«.no-tice
of the petition has not been served on him, itis
the tribunal to record its _.find_i4ng,’_’_san1¢’«~VV’
Technicalities of law could never”14corn_Aer~’iVn th.e”w”ayuor-~d’o12ing
substantial justice. The tribt;-nai tih-erefore.conri’~m.itt:ed and
error in rejecting the appli_c.at:i”on”s_eel<ing'condionatéon of
delay. In view of sLj'ffrc&ent_ VLéaj.as'eV..,'_i1.ayi.ng been shown, I
'am of the co4r:'sidered""\}Ee*§J.ii: thatV]tneV'.pe:t'i'ti'on requires to be
allowed ._the :..'lo'ng.'Wdelay in filing the
applzéjcatio_ns;oV_..it_'V and proper to direct the
petitioner' to of Rs.10,000/–.
A’ ..g&For«Vt’h’eé aforesaid reasons, the order dated
in LR 1237/2008 by the Debts
R.ecoye~ryf§ ribunai, Bangalore is set aside. The application
AA seeiking condonation of delay in filing the application for
“r_ec~alling is allowed. The tribunal shall hear the petitioner
on Ll-\.2940/2008 on merits. The petitioner is directed to
pay costs of a surn of Rs.10,000/– to the registry of this
W»
A5”
Court within a period of one week from the
of copy of this order. Office to report <:orfr2.p.%.i,uz–:3:'r:*;x:veVe';A«i.:: .
The writ petition is disposed off"accorod'i'hgI,i,f_.«' it
i Iudqe
D5