Dismissed

M S Aadipower Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRAT20 Jun 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by adjudicating it as infructuous. The tribunal observed that the main Special Appeal (S.A. 29 of 2020) arising out of DRT, Cuttack had already been finally disposed of, rendering the interim order challenged in the present appeal without survival.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed as infructuous; pending I.A.s are closed and interim orders are vacated.

M S Aadipower Tech Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 202 of 2020)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 29 of 2020 in DRT, Cuttack)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

20.6.2022 M/s. Aadipower Tech Private Limited … Appellant -VsState Bank of India … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Adnan Sarmad representing Mr. Tuna Sahu, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶7

Ms. Sharmistha Pal led by Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

At the very outset, Learned Counsel for Respondent places before me the judgment passed by Learned DRT, Cuttack in S.A. 29 to 2020 in the matter of M/s. Adi Power Tech Private Limited -vs- State Bank of India & Others dated 22^nd February, 2021 wherein Learned DRT has finally set aside the S.A.

¶11

The present appeal is against an interim order dated 17^th February, 2020 passed in S.A. 29 of 2020. When a query is raised to the Learned Counsel, Mr. Adnan Sarmad about maintainability of the appeal, very surprisingly Learned Counsel sought of adjournment on the ground that his Senior is not present today and he is not in a position to make any submission, though he is holding the brief of

¶12

¶13

Mr. Tuna Sahu, who is a practising Counsel at Cuttack High Court. Such type of conduct from a Learned Counsel cannot be appreciated even when the S.A. has already been disposed of and all the interim orders are merged in the final order. It appears that adjournment is being sought for simply to keep the matter alive, which cannot be permitted. However, since the main S.A. has already been disposed of by the Learned DRT, this appeal, being Diary No. 202 of 2020, becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand closed.

¶15

Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

¶16

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶17

File be consigned to Record room.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶19

Dated: 20^th June, 2022 07/ac

M S Aadipower Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Aadipower Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt Nagaratna Patro And Another versus Central Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Vanapala Subba Tata Raju

Bank of Baroda versus Vagishwari Educational Society and Ors.

Shankar Sharma versus Corporation Bank and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Smti Pratima Pyrbot

Shri Manoj Jayaswal and Ors. versus Idbi Bank Limited and Ors.