The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Sanjay Jain against the admission of a Section 95 application by the Adjudicating Authority, filed by the State Bank of India (SBI). The appellant sought condonation of a 26-day delay in filing the appeal. Notices issued to the appellant on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved, leading the Adjudicating Authority to order substituted service via newspaper publication. Despite this, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the Personal Guarantor was set ex-parte. The appellant claims to have learned about the impugned order only on March 30, 2024, when approaching Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS), and argues the appeal was filed within 30 days of this knowledge.
Mr. Sanjay Jain is the appellant in the case. State Bank of India (SBI) filed a Section 95 application against Mr. Jain, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority via an impugned order dated February 26, 2024. Notices issued to Mr. Jain on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved. The Adjudicating Authority then ordered substituted service through newspaper publication. Mr. Jain claims he only became aware of the order on March 30, 2024, when he approached Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS). The address used for serving notices was an outdated address of Ashok Vihar's Assets, which were sold in 2012. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had noted this address change in an order dated March 5, 2019, in the matter of 'Bank of Baroda' Vs. 'M/s.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Notices were issued to the Appellant in…
Adjudicating Authority passed an Order…
The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Sanjay Jain against the admission of a Section 95 application by the Adjudicating Authority, filed by the State Bank of India (SBI). The appellant sought condonation of a 26-day delay in filing the appeal. Notices issued to the appellant on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved, leading the Adjudicating Authority to order substituted service via newspaper publication. Despite this, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the Personal Guarantor was set ex-parte. The appellant claims to have learned about the impugned order only on March 30, 2024, when approaching Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS), and argues the appeal was filed within 30 days of this knowledge.
Mr. Sanjay Jain is the appellant in the case. State Bank of India (SBI) filed a Section 95 application against Mr. Jain, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority via an impugned order dated February 26, 2024. Notices issued to Mr. Jain on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved. The Adjudicating Authority then ordered substituted service through newspaper publication. Mr. Jain claims he only became aware of the order on March 30, 2024, when he approached Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS). The address used for serving notices was an outdated address of Ashok Vihar's Assets, which were sold in 2012. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had noted this address change in an order dated March 5, 2019, in the matter of 'Bank of Baroda' Vs. 'M/s.
…Notices were issued to the Appellant in…
Adjudicating Authority passed an Order…