2002 (10) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ. - Rule. Mr. Girish Kulkarni appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal 11, Mumbai, in M.A. No. 54 of 2002 on July 24, 2002 and confirmed by the Debts ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed before the Tribunal. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner was not aware, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal by filing an application, which was filed within time. At the most, there was delay of three to four days in filing the application. Considering the matter in its entirety, the Tribunal ought to have condoned delay. Unfortunately, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide ex parte decree was made on May 13, 2002. It is also necessary to note that on April 10, 2002, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated September 7, 2001 which was ready on May 9, 2002. Thus, there was delay of some days only. In the light of the averments made and contentions raised, it would be in the interest of justice if we allow the petition by condoning delay in fili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or was liable to be quashed and set aside as it was passed in accordance with law. As and when the matter will come up for hearing, the Tribunal will apply its mind and pass an appropriate order. 10. From the record, it is clear that the ex parte decree was passed on September 7, 2001. It was for about Rs. 1.18 crores. Thereafter, more than one year has passed. According to the learned counsel fo....