Allowed

Indian Bank v. Bsle I Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT20 Apr 2022REGULAR APPEAL/132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for substitution due to legal amalgamation was disposed of, allowing the substitution of Indian Bank for Allahabad Bank. A separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning a 149-day appeal delay was allowed, contingent upon payment of Rs.1000 to the State Legal Service Authority.

What did the court decide?

Substitution of Indian Bank for Allahabad Bank allowed. Delay in appeal condoned subject to depositing Rs.1000 with State Legal Service Authority.

Indian Bank versus Bsle I Constructions Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 208 of 2019)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 81 of 2017 in DRT-1, Hyderabad)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

20.04.2022	Allahabad Bank	… Appellant
	-vs-
	BSLE-1 Constr Limited & Anothe …	uctions Private r Respondents
	Mr. Soudip Pal Ms. Saswati Sikd Appellant	Choudhuri with er, Counsel for

¶6

Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia with Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

¶7

None for Respondent No. 1

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

This is an application for substitution, filed today by Appellant, indicating that Allahabad Bank has been amalgamated with the Indian Bank.

¶10

The application, being formal in nature, the prayer for substitution of Indian Bank in place and instead Allahabad Bank is allowed.

¶11

Appellant is directed to carry out the amendment in course of the day.

¶12

The substitution application stands disposed of.

¶13

T.R. No. 113786 dated 2^nd September, 2019

¶14

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 149 days delay in filing the appeal. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that since a similar matter was pending before the Learned DRT,

¶15

¶16

Kolkata, under a wrong impression, the present appeal could not be filed within time.

¶17

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 orally objected and submitted that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find the ground to be sufficient for condoning the delay but subject to payment of Rs.1000.00 (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs; to be paid before the next date of hearing.

¶18

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that the costs may be paid to the State Legal Service Authority. The stand taken by Learned Counsel is appreciable. Appellant shall deposit the costs with the State Legal Service Authority.

¶19

Application bearing No. T.R. No. 113786 dated 2^nd September, 2019, stands disposed of.

¶20

In the meantime, Respondents may file opposition within three weeks with advance copy to the Appellant; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶21

List the matter on 7^th July, 2022.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 20^th April, 2022 01/ac

Indian Bank v. Bsle I Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Bsle I Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

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

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

Union Bank of India versus Badeti Jaya Rama Krishna

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Shree Shyam Tech India Pvt. Ltd. And Others