SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3651

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
M/s. Mirania Brothers and others – Appellant
Versus
IndusInd Bank and another – Respondent
C.O. 93 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sandip Mandal, Mr. Amit Saha
For the Respondents:

Right to fair hearing under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act requires proper notification of proceedings to all parties.

Headnote:The present application pertains to an appeal against the Debts Recovery Tribunal's order regarding ex parte hearings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The petitioners claimed they did not receive necessary documents for their defense. The Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was found to be mechanical. Therefore, a hearing on merits is warranted with a stay on further proceedings as ordered.

1. The present revisional application has been filed against an order whereby the appeal of the petitioners against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, fixing the application filed by the opposite party-Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for ex parte hearing, was dismissed.

2. By the said order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal had fixed the ex parte date despite the revisionists- petitioners having allegedly not received any copy of the Bank’s application nor any copy of the paper book in the matter.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on several orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, including the order dated January 24, 2024, whereby direction of service of paper books on the petitioners were issued.

4. It is alleged by learned counsel that, however, no such copy was ever furnished before fixing the matter for ex parte hearing by the Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel argues that in the absence of service of any copy of the application of the Bank or the connected paper book, the hearing which would be given to the petitioners would be illusory, since there would not be any opportunity for the revisionists-petitioners to controvert the allegations of the Bank.

6. The Appellate Tribunal, without going into such aspect of the matter, mechanically affirmed the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

7. Since an arguable issue has been raised on the above questions, the present revisional application is required to be heard on merits.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners shall serve copies of C.O. 93 of 2025 on the opposite parties indicating that the revisional application shall be listed for hearing as a contested application in the next Circuit, subject to being mentioned before the appropriate learned Single Judge having determination.

9. The petitioners shall file an affidavit-of-service before the said court on the returnable date.

10. There shall be stay of all further proceedings in O.A.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top