In an interim order, the Appellate Tribunal allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 34-day delay in filing an appeal, finding the grounds sufficient for relaxation.
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed; 34 days delay in filing appeal condoned.
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. 315 of 2018)
(Arising out of T.S.A. 161 of 2018 in DRT-2, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
06.05.2022 Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation … Appellant -vsState Bank of India … Respondent
Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikder, Learned Counsel for Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. 506 of 2019
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 34 days delay in filing the appeal.
Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank 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. Delay for 34 days is condoned.
Application being I.A. 506 of 2019, is allowed.
Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by Respondent be taken on record;
rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks.
List the matter on 21st July, 2022.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 6th May, 2022 02/ac
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of 34 days delay in filing appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is justified.
Whether the stated grounds for delay are sufficient to permit the appeal.
Sepco Electric Power Construction Corporation
State Bank of India
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
