Dismissed

Sri Gopal Chandra Saha and Anr. v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

DRAT20 Apr 2022MISC APPEAL/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Miscellaneous appeal arising from a dismissed writ petition. The Tribunal confirmed the High Court's quashing of an order dated 6th October 2020, dismissing the pending appeal. The application for appointment of a receiver was dismissed due to absence of the Appellant.

What did the court decide?

Application for appointment of receiver dismissed; Appeal Diary No. 231 of 2019 dismissed as quashed order stood retrenched.

Sri Gopal Chandra Saha and Anr. versus Industrial Development… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2021)

¶3

(Arising out of Diary No. 231 of 2019 in O.A. 381 of 2019 in DRT, Cuttack)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

20.04.2022 M/s. Ores Enterprises Private Limited … Appellant -vsHousing & Urban Development Corporation Limited … Respondent

¶6

None for Appellant Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5

¶7

Mrs. Sukriti Datta with Ms. Smriti Das, representing Mr. Tuna Sahu, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

Matter is taken today. None appears for the Appellant. Heard the Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 5 and 1 and have perused the record.

¶10

It transpires from the record that an appeal, being Diary No. 231 of 2019, was preferred by the Appellant against an order passed by DRT, Cuttack in M.A. 89 of 2019, arising out of O.A. 381 of 2011 dated 28^th June, 2019 wherein application for stay of auction sale was dismissed. During pendency of the appeal, an order was passed by this Tribunal on 6^th of October, 2020 wherein it was directed that Appellant may prefer an appeal against the proceedings of the Recovery Officer, DRT, Cuttack before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Cuttack and in the event an appeal is

¶11

¶12

preferred, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously within a period of four weeks.

¶13

A writ petition, bearing No. W.P.(C) 30466 of 2020, was preferred by Respondent No. 5, namely, Suresh Agarwal, before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack which was decided by a Division Bench on the 15^th of April, 2021; wherein the Division Bench held:

¶14

“22. That being the position, the question of the DRAT permitting Opposite Party No. 1 to file an appeal by the impugned order passed on 6^th October, 2020, long after the expiry of the 30 day period within which such appeal had to be filed, does not arise. In other words, after the judgment of the Supreme Court in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited (supra), the DRT did not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond 30 days from the date of the order of the RO. It is inconceivable that the DRAT which is again a body limited by statute, could have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the DRT.

¶15

23. It should be noted here that unlike the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the DRAT is a statutory body, whose powers are prescribed by the statute. While it can condone the delay in the filing of an appeal before itself by virtue of the proviso to Section 20 (3) of the RDB Act, the DRAT has no power to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the DRT against an order of an RO.”

¶16

¶17

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 6^th October, 2020, passed by this Tribunal, was set aside. Consequently, Appeal No. 01 of 2020, pending before the DRT, Cuttack, also stood dismissed.

¶18

An application, bearing No. 326 of 2019, is an application for appointment of receiver. None is present for the Appellant to press the application. Accordingly, the application, bearing No. 326 of 2019 is dismissed.

¶19

An application, being Diary No. 231 of 2019, filed by Appellant is also dismissed since the order dated 6^th October, 2020 has already been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶20

List this matter on 13^th July, 2022 for hearing.

¶21

Opposition, if any, be filed within four weeks with advance copy to the Appellant; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 20^th April, 2022 08/ac

Sri Gopal Chandra Saha and Anr. v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gopal Chandra Saha and Anr. v. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri Rajesh Sanei and Anr. versus Hdfc Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms. Srusti Info

Union Bank of India versus Ms Srusti Infotech And Others

Indian Bank versus Bsle I Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Badeti Jaya Rama Krishna

Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund versus Datre Corporation Ltd. and Ors.