Allowed

Beldi Sridhar and Anr. v. Indian Bank

DRAT22 Jun 2022MISC APPLICATION/15/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay and recall of a default dismissal order in a miscellaneous appeal. The appeal was restored subject to payment of costs to the State Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

I.A. 147 of 2020 allowed condoning delay; M.A. 15 of 2020 allowed and appeal restored subject to payment of Rs.15,000.00 costs to State Legal Services Authority.

Beldi Sridhar and Anr. versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(M.A. 15 of 2020 in Appeal No. 109 of 2018) (Arising out of S.A. 818 of 2014 in DRT-1, Kolkata)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

22.6.2022 Beldi Sridhar & Another … Appellant -VsIndian Bank … Respondent Mr. Prantik Garai, Learned Counsel for Appellant/Purchaser

¶5

Ms. Sharmistha Pal, led by Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

I.A. 147 of 2020

¶8

In this application Appellants have prayed for condonation of thirty four days delay in filing the appeal.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, opposed by stating that no good ground has been taken for condoning the delay.

¶10

Going through the record, I find the ground, as made out in the application, is sufficient for condoning the delay of thirty four days.

¶11

The application, being I.A. 147 of 2022 is allowed by condoning the delay.

¶12

M.A. 15 of 2020

¶13

This application is for recall of the order dated 17^th January, 2020 dismissing the appeal on default by the Appellant.

¶14

¶15

It is submitted that on the date fixed Learned Counsel for Appellant was busy in some other Court and he could not attend the Tribunal in time when the matter was called on. It is further submitted that the reasons were beyond his control and for the laches on his part, the appeal was dismissed.

¶16

Learned Counsel for Respondent does not oppose to the matter being restored.

¶17

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

Going through the record, I find the ground, as made out in the application, is sufficient for recalling the order dated 17^th January, 2020.

¶19

Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2020, is allowed subject to payment of Rs.15,000.00 (Rupees fifteen thousand) to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority as costs within a week from date; failing which, this order shall automatically stand withdrawn.

¶20

Upon compliance of the order, the appeal be restored to its original file and number.

¶21

List the mater on 12^th August, 2022 for further hearing.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 22^nd June, 2022 06/ac

Beldi Sridhar and Anr. v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beldi Sridhar and Anr. v. Indian Bank

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

Sai Nath Estates Private Limited versus Syndicate Bank

K Raghuram Reddy versus Vijaya Bank Now Bank Of Baroda

International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Patriot Automation Projects Ltd.

Smarajit Sarkar and Anr. versus Bank of India

N Dilip Kumar versus South Indian Bank

Central Bank of India versus Ms Sarala Madan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. And Others