https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162641 An ex parte order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not liable to be set aside where the defendants had already participated in the civil suit, engaged counsel, filed a written statement, and thus had notice of the proceedings and sufficient opportunity to appear. Service by repeated summons at the same address and by newspaper publication supported the finding of adequate notice under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied through Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Relief was also refused because the applicants suppressed the material fact of their prior participation and representation by counsel. The Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court orders were upheld. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162641 An ex parte order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not liable to be set aside where the defendants had already participated in the civil suit, engaged counsel, filed a written statement, and thus had notice of the proceedings and sufficient opportunity to appear. Service by repeated summons at the same address and by newspaper publication supported the finding of adequate notice under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as applied through Section 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Relief was also refused because the applicants suppressed the material fact of their prior participation and representation by counsel. The Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal, and High Court orders were upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162641