Disposed

Bhagabati Ojha v. Central Bank of India

DRAT6 Apr 2022REGULAR APPEAL/32/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal noted the death of Respondent No. 3 after a lapse exceeding one and a half years without full details of legal heirs. While contemplating heavy costs, the Chairperson refrained due to the pandemic. The respondent was directed to furnish necessary details within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 2 to furnish complete details of proposed legal heirs within one week with advance copy to the Appellant.

Bhagabati Ojha versus Central Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 32 of 2020)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 158 of 2015 in DRT, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

06.04.2022 Bhagawati Ojha

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

-vs-

¶8

Central Bank of India & 2 Others … Respondents

¶9

Mr. A.K. Dhandhania with Mr. Rudra Dev Bagchi, Mr. Subhojit Chatterjee and Mr. D.K. Ojha, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶10

Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Central Bank of India

¶11

Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray with Ms. Debdutta Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3

¶12

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶13

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that Respondent No. 3, Partha Mondal died on the 17^th of July, 2020. He was represented through Ms. Debdutta Chakraborty, Advocate. Death of Respondent No. 3 is not reported to this Tribunal.

¶14

Today Ms. Debdutta Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 2 and 3, submitted an application informing about the death of Respondent No. 3 but apart from the names, the addresses, age, relationship and Guardianship in case of minor, etc., have not been provided as per rules. Though the death of Respondent No. 3 is being

¶15

¶16

informed after lapse of more than one and a half years that too without complete details of the legal heirs. Heavy cost should have been imposed upon Respondent No. 2 but keeping in view the intervening pandemic situation, I refrain from imposing cost.

¶17

Respondent No. 2 is directed to furnish complete details, as per rules, of the proposed legal heirs within a period of one week with advance copy to the Appellant.

¶18

Appellant upon receipt of such information, shall move proper application for substitution; advance copy whereof be served upon the substituted Respondents and file Affidavitof-Service to that effect.

¶19

List the matter on 6^th May, 2022.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶21

Dated: 6^th April, 2022 05/ac

Bhagabati Ojha v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagabati Ojha v. Central Bank of India

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

M S Radient Bastralaya versus Uco Bank

Bolin Chandra Deuri versus housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

N Dilip Kumar versus South Indian Bank

Samar De And Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Ifci Limited versus Madhucon Infra Limited

Smarajit Sarkar and Anr. versus Bank of India