Supreme Court of India

Sunil Poddar v Union Bank of India

(2008) 2 SCC 326; AIR 2008 SC 100620081 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The bank sued the appellants for recovery in a civil court, where they filed a written statement and were represented by counsel. The suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which proceeded ex parte. The appellants applied to set aside the ex parte order, saying they had not been served after the transfer and learnt of the order only in December 2000.
Issue
Whether the ex parte order should be set aside on the ground that the summonses were not duly served.
Held
The appeal was dismissed with costs. Summonses had been issued to the same address. The appellants knew of the proceedings, had been represented before transfer, and had a duty to inquire after the case went to the Tribunal. They had suppressed these facts in their application. Read with S.22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and O.IX R.13, the Tribunal was right to refuse to set aside the order.
Principle
A defendant who had notice of the proceedings, and suppresses that fact, cannot have an ex parte order set aside for defective service.
Cite this

Facts

  • The bank sued the appellants for recovery in a civil court, where they filed a written statement and were represented by counsel. The suit was transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, which proceeded ex parte. The appellants applied to set aside the ex parte order, saying they had not been served after the transfer and learnt of the order only in December 2000.

Issue

  1. Whether the ex parte order should be set aside on the ground that the summonses were not duly served.

Held

  • The appeal was dismissed with costs. Summonses had been issued to the same address. The appellants knew of the proceedings, had been represented before transfer, and had a duty to inquire after the case went to the Tribunal. They had suppressed these facts in their application. Read with S.22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and O.IX R.13, the Tribunal was right to refuse to set aside the order.

Ratio decidendi

O.IX R.13 aims to protect a defendant who did not have a fair chance to appear. Where the defendant knew of the proceedings and was represented, a complaint about service after transfer does not justify setting aside the ex parte order, particularly when material facts are suppressed.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Service and ex parte decrees: Cite with O.IX R.13 and its second proviso (irregularity in service where the defendant had notice).
  • Key line: "Knowledge of the proceedings defeats a plea of non-service (Sunil Poddar, 2008)."

Cite this

Citation

Sunil Poddar v Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326; AIR 2008 SC 1006

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/290974/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.