In the circumstances, numberody appeared before the DRT and the DRT vide its ex parte judgment and order dated December 15, 2000 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff Bank holding that the Bank was entitled to recover 1,07,17,177/ with interest and companyt from the defendant Nos.
It is the case of the appellant that Adhunik Detergent Ltd. Defendant No.
It was, therefore, prayed that an issue as to maintainability of suit against defendant Nos.
They appeared before the Court through an advocate and filed written statement in March, 1995.
It was further stated that suit against defendant Nos.
According to the appellants, they had changed their address and new address was available with the Bank.
In fact, according to the respondent Bank, it was the same address which was given by the appellants themselves before both the Tribunals and before the High Court.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioners and companyfirmed the order of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad dated September 13, 2005 which in turn affirmed the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur on December 20, 2001.
Summonses were issued by the Court and the defendants appeared.
All these orders have been challenged by the appellants in the present appeal.
It may, however, be stated that during the pendency of the suit before the Civil Court, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act came into force and in 1998 the suit filed by the respondent Bank came to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur DRT for short .
But with a view to deprive the Bank of the legitimate dues and to delay the proceedings initiated against them, they did number appear before the DRT.
So far as the present appellants are companycerned, they were number served with the summonses but when they came to know about the filing of the suit, they appeared and filed written statement on March 9, 1995 companytending inter alia that they had resigned from the Directorship of the Company Adhunik Detergent Ltd. with effect from August 18, 1989 and the Bank was intimated about such resignation.
In spite of that, with mala fide intention and oblique motive, summonses were sought to be served upon appellants at an old address but the appellants were number served because of change of address.
7 to 9 were aware of the proceedings before the Civil Court.
Though it was number necessary for the Bank to serve the appellants once again, they made a prayer to the Bank to get the summonses published in a newspaper which was done and in Navbharat Times, Bombay as well as Navbharat Times, Raipur summonses were published.
It is the say of the appellants that there was division of business among the Directors of Adhunik Detergent Ltd. and Adhunik Synthetics Ltd. Consequent upon the division, the appellants herein, who were Directors 5, 6 and 7 had resigned as Directors from Adhunik Detergent Ltd. on August 18, 1989 and they got exclusive companytrol over Adhunik Synthetics Ltd. From that date onwards, the appellants numbermore remained as Directors of Adhunik Detergent Ltd. It was alleged by the respondent Bank that since Adhunik Detergent Ltd. did number repay the loan amount, a civil suit came to be filed by the Bank in the Court of District Judge, Raipur, Madhya Pradesh for recovery of Rs.
In the circumstances, they companyld number remain present before the DRT.
The same mistake has been repeated by the Appellate Tribunal as also by the High Court.
Adhunik Detergent Ltd. had taken loan from the respondent Bank.
3935 of 2006 K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
It was, therefore, clear that they were served with the summonses and were in know of the proceedings.
It was also submitted that appellants were number informed about the transfer of case from Civil Court to DRT and numbersummonses were served upon them.
7, 8 and 9 that numbersuit against them would lie.
By number doing so, the DRT had companymitted grave error and the said order deserves to be quashed.
The plaint which was filed was number signed by a person authorized to do so and on that companynt also, the suit was number tenable.
The appellants who were defendant Nos.
An affidavit in reply is filed by Senior Manager Law of the respondent Bank, wherein it was submitted that the appellants were aware of the proceedings initiated by the Bank against them.
Summonses were then published in a Hindi newspaper which had numberwide circulation.
7 to 9 was number maintainable.
1,07,17,177.60 p. In the said suit, over and above the Company, all the Directors were also joined as defendants.
Immediately on December 18, 2000, Mr. Karmakar went to DRT, Jabalpur for getting requisite information and came to know that numberice was sent to the appellants at the old address though new address was available.
The appellants herein as Directors of Adhunik Detergent Ltd. at the relevant time became guarantors for repayment of loan and executed certain documents in favour of the respondent Bank.
The DRT, however, on December 20, 2001 dismissed the application.
It is asserted by the appellants that they were number aware of the proceedings before the DRT and numbersummonses were served upon them.
The defendants were also restrained from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing off the hypothecated mortgaged properties without the prior permission of DRT.
Arising out of SLP c No.
The appellants appealed against the order passed by the DRT, but the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad DRAT for short also dismissed the appeal.
The appellants had numberknowledge about the transfer of the suit to DRT number summonses were issued by DRT to the appellants at the new address.
He also came to know that since numberody appeared on behalf of the appellants, ex parte decree had been passed.
It was thereafter their duty to take care of their interest, when the suit was transferred to DRT, Jabalpur.
In the circumstances, the appellants herein made an application under Section 22 2 g of the Act on January 10, 2001 for setting aside an ex parte order passed by the DRT.
44A of 1993 instituted by respondent Union Bank of India was incorporated as Company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
The appellants, therefore, prayed that they may be deleted from the array of parties.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It was further stated that summonses were issued to the appellants at the addresses at which they were earlier served.
A prayer was made in the plaint to hold all the defendants jointly and severely liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff Bank along with interest, companyts and other expenses.
7 to 9 be framed and decided as preliminary issue before trying the suit on merits.
It was on December 16, 2000 when Mr. G. Karmakar, who was working for the appellants, happened to visit the office of M.P. Audyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd. at Bhopal for some official work that the officials of the Nigam informed him that a suit pending in the Civil Court, Raipur was transferred to DRT, Jabalpur and an ex parte decree had been passed against the appellants.
That action was also taken with a view to deprive the appellants from knowing about the proceedings before the DRT so that they may number be able to appear and defend themselves and the Bank would be able to obtain ex parte order.
It was stated in the said application that preliminary objections were raised in the written statement by the appellants defendant Nos.
A writ petition filed against the order of DRAT also met with the same fate.
A prayer was made to frame two issues under Order XIV, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Code for short as preliminary issues and to decide them as such.
The appellants had led the evidence in support of their say that they were number in Mumbai at the relevant time and they were number subscribers of Hindi newspaper Navbharat Times.
To appreciate the companytroversy raised in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be stated.
67297 of 2005.
Another application was also made in November, 1995 raising a similar objection companytending that the suit was number instituted in accordance with law.
The present appeal is directed against the order dated November 23, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
There was another Company also known as Adhunik Synthetics Ltd. which was floated by the Directors of Adhunik Detergent Ltd. According to the appellants, initially, Adhunik Detergent Ltd. had seven Directors, namely, 1 Satyanarayan Jalan, 2 Krishna Jalan, 3 Chakrapani Jalan, 4 K.K. Jalan, 5 Sunil Poddar, 6 Sushil Kumar Kanodia and 7 Radhey Shyam Poddar.
1 in Suit No.
An advertisement was also published in a Hindi daily.
It was, therefore, companytended that they were number responsible for repayment of loan amount and suit against them was number maintainable.
In civil suit, the appellants were joined as defendant Nos.
On March 14, 1995, the appellants also filed an application by raising preliminary objection as to maintainability of civil suit against them.
It was stated that the preliminary objection raised by them was fundamental in nature and went to very root of the jurisdiction of the Court.
They also raised preliminary objections by filing applications, requesting the Court to treat the issues as to maintainability of suit and liability of the appellants as preliminary issues.
The learned companynsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the DRT, companyfirmed by the DRAT as well as by the High Court.
1 9 jointly and severely.
