Allowed

Multiple Educational and Manpower Dev. Trust & Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT15 Jun 2022REGULAR APPEAL/34/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this interlocutory order arising from an appeal against a DRT judgment, the Division Bench of the DRAT granted leave to condone a delay of eleven days in filing the first appeal. The delay was explained by the festive season and illness of the appellant. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court directions regarding the exclusion of a specific period from limitation calculations for judicial proceed

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was allowed. The notice was issued, and the respondent was granted four weeks to file opposition.

Multiple Educational and Manpower Dev. Trust & Ors. versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 491 of 2020)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 189 of 2019 in DRT-3, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

15.6.2022 Multiple Educational And Manpower Development Trust & 8 Others … Appellants -VsKotak Mahindra Bank Limited … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Soham Bandopadhyay with Mr. Aditya Chaturvedi led by Mr. Niladri Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶7

Mr. Avishek Ray Chowdhury led by Mr. Prantik Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

I.A. 304 of 2020

¶10

Before dealing with the condonation application, it would be appropriate to record the submission made by Mr. Prantik Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondent, drawing attention of this Tribunal to the fact as mentioned in the order dated 5^th April, 2021, the Appellants are not pressing for waiting for the orders of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the matter of contempt filed by the Respondents. Hence the application for condonation of delay is taken up for hearing.

¶11

At the outset there is a delay of eleven days, the reason for such delay is due to the intervention of the festive season, i.e. Diwali and in the meantime Appellant fell sick,

¶12

¶13

as has been explained in para 4 of the application. Appellants have prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance upon an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10^th January, 2022 wherein in para 5 the Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following directions:

¶15

“I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.

¶16

II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022.

¶17

III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from

¶18

¶19

01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

¶20

IV. It is further claimed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 223 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instuments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the curt or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.”

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, opposed by stating that no good ground has been taken for condoning the delay.

¶22

Going through the record, I find the ground, as made out in the application, is sufficient for condoning the delay of eleven days. Accordingly the application, being I.A. 304 of 2020, is allowed by condoning the delay.

¶23

Appeal be registered by supplying regular number. List the matter on 25^th July, 2022.

¶24

Learned Counsel for Respondents prays for, and is granted, four weeks time for filing opposition to the main appeal; advance copy whereof be served upon Appellant. Rejoinder if any, be filed before the date of listing.

¶25

¶26

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶27

Dated: 15^th June, 2022 04/ac

Multiple Educational and Manpower Dev. Trust & Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Multiple Educational and Manpower Dev. Trust & Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

United Bank of India and Anr. versus Sri Suman Saha

Biswanath Sengupta versus Citi Bank

Ms Sree Vishnu Khadsari Sugar Mill versus The Tamil Mercantiles Bank Ltd.

Andhra Bank and Anr. versus Sri Yelamanchili Venkata Satyanarayana Chowdary

O Jyothi and Anr. versus Union Bank of India and Anr.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus M S Heritage Retail India Pvt. Ltd.