The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Sudip Mallick against a Debt Recovery Tribunal decree. The court rejected an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, deeming the appeal time-barred.
Appeal dismissed as time-barred; condonation of delay application dismissed in default.
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 DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (Appl. No. 222 of 2018)
(Arising out of S.A. No. 239 of 2015 in DRT –3 Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON.
21.09.2022.
Sudip Mallick
…. Appellants
Vs.
HDFC Ltd. & Anr.
…… Respondents
None for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Matter is taken up in the revised list. None is present for the party.
Appellant has filed I.A. 148 of 2018 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
I.A. 148 of 2018 is dismissed in default. Accordingly, appeal is also time barred and is thus dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson.
Dated : 21st September, 2022 05/PKB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be granted.
Whether the appeal is time-barred.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudip Mallick
HDFC Ltd.
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
