Allowed

Idbi Bank Limited v. Ms Shree Basweshwar Agro Processors

DRAT26 Jul 2022IA/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal. The court held that the Appellant's failure to comprehend the decree's interest dates during the open court dictation justified the condonation despite the delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is allowed.

Idbi Bank Limited versus Ms Shree Basweshwar Agro Processors — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 74/2020 (CoD)

¶3

In Appeal on Diary No. 2/2021

¶4

Between

¶5

IDBI Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Shri. Sidramappa Anandrao Mule, Proprietor of … Respondent/s M/s. Shree Baswehwar Agro Process & Ors.

¶7

Mr Vishal Tambe, i/b Mr Vijay V. Chandwale, Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Ms Aarti Suwarna, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 3

¶9

-: Order dated: 26/07/2022:-

¶10

The Appellant Bank has impugned the order dated 11.01.2019 of the Ld. Presiding Officer in Original Application (O.A.) No. 57/2016 on the files of D.R.T., Pune. There was a decree passed against Defendant Nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, in the O.A. for a total sum of Rs.2,25,29,527.50 together with pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till payment/realization.

¶11

The learned counsel for the Appellant states that the order was dictated in the open court and the niceties of the decree were not comprehended at that time. Only on receiving the certified copy of the order did the Appellant realise that interest has been awarded only from the date of the decree and not from the date of the application i.e. 17.03.2015. Therefore, the Appellant has come up with this Appeal challenging the decree dated 11.01.2019.

¶12

¶13

Appellant filed the Appeal on 04.04.2019 with a delay of 21 days. The reasons for the delay have been explained in the application and the accompanying Affidavit.

¶14

The Respondents have not filed any objection/reply to the application for condonation of delay. However, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has vehemently opposed the application stating that the grounds mentioned in the application are not sufficient mainly for the reasons that the order was dictated in the open Court, therefore, the Appellant was expected to know that only part of the claim has been allowed by the D.R.T.

¶15

On going through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there appears to be some misconception on the part of the Appellant in understanding the ingredients of the decree passed in the open court. Though the order was dictated in the open Court, the Appellant could not, at that time, comprehend the date from which interest was awarded, and the same was noticed only on receiving the Certificate Copy of the order. The Appeal is filed with a limited purpose, and the Appellant seeks an opportunity to prove its case.

¶16

In view of the above, I find that delay of 21 days in filing the Appeal needs to be condoned, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The Registrar is directed to take the Appeal on the file if there are no other defects to be cured.

¶17

Post on 22.08.2022 before the Registrar for compliance.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

dpj-8

¶20

Idbi Bank Limited v. Ms Shree Basweshwar Agro Processors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank Limited v. Ms Shree Basweshwar Agro Processors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dena Bank versus M/s. Shrinathji Spintex P. Ltd. & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Shreenathji Spintes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

P N Naidu versus Punjab National Bank

Jasmin Metal and Ors. versus Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Jasmin Metal and Ors. versus Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. versus Indira Gandhi Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited