Failure to appear and defend a matter, despite being served with notice, may result in the rejection of an application for review.

Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. This application has been preferred by the applicant-Maharashtra State Financial Corporation Limited with a prayer to review/recall the order dated 06.01.2016, passed by this Court in Official Liquidator's Report No. 80 of 2015 in Company Petition No. 271 of 1996, qua the direction to the applicant to refund an amount of Rs. 4,82,953/- along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of the receipt of the above amount, in terms of the ratio worked out by M/s. Bhavesh Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants, within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order.

2. Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate for the applicant, has submitted that this Court had issued notice to the respondents in Official Liquidator's Report No. 80 of 2015 and, accordingly, the applicant (original respondent No. 3) was also served with the notice of the Court. On receipt of the notice, the applicant had issued a letter dated 14.08.2015 to him. However, this letter was never received by him as he had changed his residential address and the letter had been posted at the old address. In view of the above, the applicant was unable to place its case before the Court, when the order dated 06.01.2016 was passed.

2.1 It is further submitted that as the said order has been passed without hearing the applicant, the direction qua the applicant, for the refund of the amount, may be recalled.

3. Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 Official Liquidator, has strongly opposed the application by submitting that the applicant was served with the notice of this Court but has chosen not to appear, for reasons best known to it.

3.1 It is further submitted that this Court has granted several opportunities to the applicant in order to appear and defend the matter, as is evident from the various orders passed in the Official Liquidator's Report. The excuse that the letter dated 14.08.2015 addressed by the applicant to its advocate, Shri A.S. Asthavadi, did not reach him is not a convincing one, as the mobile number of the learned advocate is written on the copy of the letter that is annexed as Annexure-B to the application. Had it been the intention of the applicant to instruct the learned advocate to appear and defend the matter, nothing had prevented it from calling the advocate on the said mobile number, which has not changed.

3.2 It is further submitted that in the letter dated 14.08.2015, there are no instructions to the learned advocate to appear on behalf of the applicant or to file the Vakalatnama. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the applicant has taken any effective or concrete steps to defend itself, after being served with the notice of the Court.

3.3 Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned advocate, has further submitted that respondent No. 2, the Karnataka Bank Limited has already refunded the amount of Rs. 5,08,840/-, with interest, upon receipt of the order of this Court. The said Bank had also not chosen to appear but has obeyed the order of the Court.

3.4 It is further submitted that though the application has been styled as one for review of the order, no grounds for review are made out. There is no error apparent on the face of the order and as none has been pointed out, therefore, the application be rejected.

4. Mr. B.H. Bhagat, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 IDBI Bank, has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the Official Liquidator.

5. Mr. Anip A. Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 HDFC Bank, has also prayed for the dismissal of the application on the ground that no grounds for review of the order are made out.

6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the application as well as the record of Official Liquidator's Report No. 80 of 2015. A perusal of the orders passed in the Official Liquidator's Report makes it amply clear that notice in the Report was issued on 23.07.2015. Thereafter, on 07.09.2015, fresh notice was