Allowed

Idbi Home Finance Ltd. v. Mrs Vidya Prashant Bandekar

DRAT22 Sept 2022IA/5/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for an extension of time to file a reply to an application for condonation of delay. Subsequently, it allowed the condonation of delay contingent upon payment of costs to the DRT Bar Association.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing restoration application allowed on payment of Rs. 5,000 to DRT Bar Association, Mumbai.

Idbi Home Finance Ltd. versus Mrs Vidya Prashant… — Public Procurement and Tenders | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 05/2021 (CoD)

¶3

¶4

M.A. on Diary No. 21/2021 (Restoration)

¶5

¶6

(Appeal on Lodging No. 262/2017 – Disposed of)

¶7

Between

¶8

IDBI Home Finance Ltd … Appellant/s V/s. Mrs Vidya Prashant Bandekar & Anr. … Respondent/s Ms. Shivani Soni, i/b M/s. RKS Associates, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Chirag Thakkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶9

-: Order dated: 22/09/2022:-

¶10

This Appeal filed on Lodging No. 262/2017 challenges the order of D.R.T. III, Mumbai allowing S.A. No. 309/2012 on 31.08.2016. The Respondent Bank is aggrieved by that order, and hence in Appeal.

¶11

The Registrar, vide order dated 16.07.2019 declined the registration of the said Appeal on Lodging No. 262/2017 for not rectifying the defects noticed by the office.

¶12

The Appellant filed Chamber Appeal i.e. M.A. on Diary No. 21/2021 on 31.12.2019 for restoration of the Appeal with an application i.e. I.A. No. 5/2021 for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing Chamber Appeal.

¶13

On 05.04.2022 Respondent No.1 appeared in person and was directed to file a reply, if any, on this application for condonation of

¶14

¶15

delay. Today, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent submits that no reply has been filed yet and seeks further time for filing a reply. It is seen that the last hearing was on 29.06.2022 and Respondent No.1 has got sufficient time till today for filing a reply on the application for condonation of delay.

¶16

In view of the above, the request of the Advocate for Respondent No.1 for further time for filing a reply cannot be granted.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the Appellant on the application for condonation of delay. The reasons for the delay are explained in the application and the accompanying affidavit and I am convinced about the reasons mentioned therein. But in view of the facts, there is a delay of 53 days and it can only be allowed on payment of costs.

¶18

Hence, I.A. No. 05/2021 i.e. application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application is allowed on of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to The DRT Bar Association, Mumbai, towards the purchase of books and periodicals within the period of two weeks.

¶19

Post on 14.10.2022 before Registrar for compliance.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

dpj-2

¶22

Idbi Home Finance Ltd. v. Mrs Vidya Prashant Bandekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Home Finance Ltd. v. Mrs Vidya Prashant Bandekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Memon Co-op. Bank Ltd. versus Indian Bank

M/S Mahavir Metal Mart and Ors. versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Official Liquidator of M/s Gujarat Optical Communication Limited and Ors.

Govindbhai Chhababhai Patel & Ors. versus Ganpati Pulp and Paper Mills Limited & Ors.

Shivaji Jaisingh Jadhav versus the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited and Ors.

Asrec(India) Ltd. versus Brij Kishore