Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms S R Worth Ltd. And Ors.

DRAT5 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/33/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed I.A. 255 of 2022. It rejected the respondent's prayer for stay of the appealed order dated 03.08.2022 due to lack of grounds. Transfer of the special application to DRT-1 was listed for hearing, noting no application was filed u/s 17A RDDB Act 1993.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for stay of operation of the order dated 03.08.2022 is rejected. I.A. 255 of 2022 is allowed. Matter listed for hearing on transfer of S.A. from DRT-2 to DRT-1.

State Bank of India versus Ms S R Worth Ltd. And Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 33 of 2022) MA No. 08 of 2022 I.A. No. 255 of 2022

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 118 of 2015 in DRT-2 Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

CHAIRPERSON

05.08.2022

State Bank of India

… Appellant

-Vs-

S. R. Worth Ltd. & Ors.

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Mr. P.K.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the Appellants

¶13

Mr. N. Mishra, learned counsel with Mr. G. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶15

I.A. 255 of 2022 is a put up application. I.A. is allowed. Matter is taken up today.

¶16

M.A. No. 08 of 2022 is filed seeking stay of operation of the order passed in Appeal No. 33 of 2022 on 03.08.2022 and to transfer the S.A. 118 of 2015 to DRT-1, Kolkata.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

¶18

Appeal No. 33 of 2022 was decided on 03.08.2022 wherein the appeal was allowed and interim order passed by learned DRT was set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that operation of the impugned order may be stayed. Further prayer is since there is no Presiding Officer in DRT-2 matter may be transferred to DRT-1. As far as transfer of cases are concerned there is procedure prescribed in Section 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. However, appellant has not moved any application u/s 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Hence this prayer cannot be granted.

¶19

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents prays that this application may be treated as an application u/s 17A. Since there is a prayer for transfer of the S.A., this application be treated as an application u/s 17A of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Copy of the application be served upon the appellant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents prays for stay of operation of the order dated 03.08.2022. Since appeal has been allowed on 03.08.2022, I do

¶21

not find any ground to stay the operation of order dated 03.08.2022. Accordingly, prayer for stay of operation of the order dated 03.08.2022 is rejected. Appellants may file objection, if any, by the next date of hearing. List on 08.08.2022 for hearing on the prayer for transfer of S.A. from DRT-2 to DRT-1, Kolkata.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 5^th August, 2022 01/pkb

State Bank of India v. Ms S R Worth Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms S R Worth Ltd. And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Bolin Chetia

State Bank of India and Anr. versus Indian Bank and Anr.

Sumanta Sahu versus Indian Bank and Anr.

Smt Indira Srinivas Mawle versus State Bank of India

Abhsishek Mawle versus State Bank of India

Abhijeet Mawle versus State Bank of India Sarb and Ors.