Angshuman Mukherjee v. Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
Registrar noted defects in the appeal under Section 18 SRA 2002 and directed the appellant to rectify them within 15 days, noting delay with waiver application but no decision on merits.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary no.252/2017 Date:07/04/2022
Angshuman Mukherjee………...Appellant
Vs.
A.O., Union Bank of India……….Respondents
Received an application under section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 presented by Ld. Advocate, Mr. Radhey shyam Tiwari.
Scrutiny of the application reveals the followings:
The application has been filed on behalf of Angshuman Mukherjee against the order dt. 12.04.2017 in SA-116/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT -3, Kolkata. Application fees of Rs.15655/- vide T.R. no.111072 dt. 26.09.2017 has been paid along with the application.
The Vakalatnama has been filed by the Ld. Advocate, Mr. Radhey shyam Tiwari .
The case is under the jurisdiction of this Appellate Tribunal.
The Application is not filed within the period of Limitation but accompanied with a petition u/s 5 of Limitation Act . Waiver application is filed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application under section 18 SRA 2002 is maintainable considering limit and defects.
Whether the waiver application under section 5 of Limitation Act is consequential.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Angshuman Mukherjee
- respondent
A.O., Union Bank of India
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 191090002522017
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court