Partly allowed

M/s Kissan Cold Storage v. City Union Bank Limited

DRAT26 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/38/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a DRT order, citing Apex Court judgment. It rejected a request for waiver of predeposit, ordering a 35% deposit within two weeks, while staying the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

IA for condonation of delay allowed; IA for waiver of predeposit dismissed with direction to deposit 35%; impugned order stayed.

M/s Kissan Cold Storage versus City Union Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 38 of 2022)

¶3

(I.A. No. 101 of 2022) (I.A. No. 102 of 2022)

¶4

(Arising out of O.A. 326 of 2019 in DRT-2 Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

26.08.2022

¶7

M/s. Kissan Cold Storage

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

City Union Bank Ltd.,

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Ms. Aprajita Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Rajib Maity, learned counsel for the respondent bank.

¶13

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶14

I.A. No. 101 of 2022 is filed by the appellant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 02.11.2021. Appellant has filed a writ petition being No. WP 15310 of 2022 before Hon’ble High Court of Telengana which was decided on 22.04.2022 and disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy giving liberty to file appeal before DRAT. Appeal was filed on 27.05.2022. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 03 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 wherein exemption of period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 was granted.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the I.A. submitting that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

¶16

Having gone through the records and facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court, I.A. No. 101 of 2022 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I.A. is thus disposed of. Register the appeal as a regular appeal.

¶17

Appellant has also filed I.A. 102 of 2022 seeking waiver from predeposit. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is liable

¶18

to pay the amount if warehouse receipt which was submitted by the original borrower is not taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made by the appellant by submitting that DRT has made a categorical finding about the liability of the appellant.

¶19

It is apparent that learned DRT has recorded its finding regarding liability of the appellant to pay the amount. Having gone through the records and after hearing submissions made by the parties as far as waiver is concerned and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant should deposit 35 per cent of the claim amount within a period of two weeks.

¶20

List on 29.11.2022 for further order.

¶21

Respondent shall file opposition within three weeks with advance copy to the appellant who may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

¶23

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶24

Dated: 26^th August, 2022 04/pkb

M/s Kissan Cold Storage v. City Union Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Kissan Cold Storage v. City Union 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

Statutes considered

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

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