Appellant sought adjournment in Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal appeal. Court refused adjournment as pleadings were complete and reserved judgment with liberty for further submissions within two weeks.
Adjournment refused; judgment reserved with time limit for further submissions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 221 of 2018)
(Arising out of S.A. 57 of 2017 in DRT, Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
04.05.2022 Trupti Ranjan Das … Appellant -vsOriental Bank of Commerce & Another … Respondent Mr. Krishna Deb Das, representing Mr. Chinmoy Sahoo, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikder, Learned Counsel for Respondent
Mr. Kishore Chandra Bariki, Auction Purchaser in person
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
A request is made for adjournment by Mr. Krishna Deb Das, Learned Counsel, on behalf of the Appellant.
Going through the record, I find that pleadings are complete; hence request for adjournment is refused.
Learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, submits that he cannot not argue the matter as he has no instruction to make submission.
I have heard Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank and the Auction Purchaser in person.
Matter is reserved for judgment.
Appellant, however, shall be at liberty to make submissions by moving appropriate application within a period of two weeks. Upon expiry of two weeks, judgment will be delivered.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 4th May, 2022 10/ac
Trupti Ranjan Das
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
