Allowed

Aromatic Intermediates v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT8 Apr 2022IA/63/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai allowed an interlocutory application for condonation of a 321-day delay in filing an appeal. The court relied on a Supreme Court order exempting specific periods for computing limitation. The main appeal is directed to be heard after administrative compliance.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 63/2022 for condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the appeal is allowed.

Aromatic Intermediates versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 63/2022 (CoD) in Appeal on Diary No.165/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Aromatic Intermediates & Chemicals & Ors. … Applicant/s V/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Jamshed Ansari, Advocate for Applicants. Mr. Rohit Gupta, i/b M/s V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate, submits that he is representing Respondent Bank and undertakes to file Vakalatnama on or before the next date of heareing.

¶6

-: Order dated : 08/04/2022 :-

¶7

Heard the Ld. Counsels for the Applicants and Respondent Bank on the application for condonation of delay of 321 days in filing present Appeal.

¶8

The impugned order is dated 19.04.2021 and Appeal has been filed on 06.04.2022.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel for the Applicants relied on the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No.665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 which clearly states that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos

¶10

(b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶11

In view of the above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reasons for delay stated in application for condonation of delay and accompanying Affidavit, I am of the view that the delay has to be condoned. Hence I.A. No.63/2022 is allowed and delay of 321 days in filing Appeal on Diary No.165/2022 is condoned.

¶12

Appeal on Diary No.165/2022 will be taken up for hearing after removing objections raised by the office.

¶13

Post on 19.04.2022 before Registrar for compliance.

¶14

dpj/mks-6

Aromatic Intermediates v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aromatic Intermediates v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank India and Ors. versus Ms S Rasiklal and Co. and 8 Ors.

Uco Bank versus M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors.

Prashant Kishor Mehta & Ors. versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Neesa Leisure Ltd. versus Asset Reconstruction Co.(I) Ltd.

Mr. Nikhil Kishor Vyas versus Bank of India & Ors.

Mr. Manish Ishwarlal Lalwani (Jain & 4 Ors. versus State Bank of India