Partly allowed

Soumitra Roy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction company Ltd. and Ors.

DRAT26 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/227/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a substitution of a deceased appellant by his widow. It also directed the deletion of an unauthorized party from the appeal memo and issuance of fresh notices.

What did the court decide?

Substitution application allowed; deletion of Authorised Officer from appeal memo directed; fresh notice to AR Company directed; hearing listed.

Soumitra Roy versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction company… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 227 of 2017) (Arising out of T.S.A. 422 of 2014 in DRT-3, Kolkata)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

26.08.2022 Soumendra Nath Roy & Another … Appellants -VsReliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & 4 Others … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Gautam Chakraborty with Mr. J.N. Manna, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶6

Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray and Ms. Sharmistha Poddar, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 3 and 4

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

Substitution Application No. 49 of 2019

¶9

This is a substitution application for substitution of Appellant No. 1, Soumendra Nath Roy, who died during pendency of the instant proceedings, by his widow Smt. Manika Roy. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their objection to the substitution application and in para 4 they have acceded to the request for substitution.

¶10

Accordingly, substitution is allowed. The name of Appellant No. 1 be deleted and be replaced by the name of his widow Smt. Manika Roy within a week.

¶11

Substitution Application No. 49 of 2019 is allowed.

¶12

¶13

Opposition to the appeal has already been filed by Respondents No. 3 and 4. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within three weeks.

¶14

Memo of Appeal as well as order dated 4^th September, 2019 shows that the Appellant was directed to take steps regarding amendment about the assignment of the loan by the Indian Bank to Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company. It appears that Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company has been added as Respondent No. 1 (a) but still Authorised Officer of Indian Bank is continuing as Respondent No. 1 in the array of parties. Appellant is directed to delete the name of Authorised Officer, Indian Bank in the Memo of Appeal from the array of parties.

¶15

Fresh notice be issued to Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company.

¶16

Vakalatnama of the proposed Appellants be filed before the next date.

¶17

List the matter on 6^th December, 2022 for hearing of the appeal.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶19

Dated: 30^th March, 2022 23/ac

Soumitra Roy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction company Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumitra Roy v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction company Ltd. and Ors.

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

Indian Bank versus M S Shaila Motors Private Limited

City Union Bank Limited versus Manasa Cake Wala

Canara Bank versus Ms Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank Of India and Ors. versus Bgm Consortium Ltd. and Others

Bgm Consortium Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Sri Kamal Karmakar versus Uco Bank