Allowed

R. Yadagiri v. State Bank of India

DRAT11 Jul 2022REGULAR APPEAL/45/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of an application to condone a 45-day delay in filing. The AppellantTribunal found the delay was bona fide due to the Appellant's mistaken belief the file was with the High Court and illness, allowing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14/05/2019 set aside subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 cost; matter directed to be disposed of after hearing on merit.

R. Yadagiri versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 45 of 2019) (Arising out of O.A. 326 of 2017 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

11.07.2022 Y. Yadagiri

¶5

… Appellant -VsState Bank of India … Respondents Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant. Ms. Aparajita Rao, Learned Counsel for Respondent.

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

Heard the Appellant and Respondent and peruse the record.

¶8

Appellant preferred an appeal against order dated 14/5/2019 passed by the Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in O.A.No.326 of 2017 whereby IA No.140 of 2019 in IA No.2799 of 2018 was dismissed.

¶9

It appears that IA No.2799 of 2018 was filed to condone the delay of 45 days to set aside the order passed in O.A./326/2017. IA No.2799 of 2018 was dismissed in default on 19/11/2018, IA No.140 of 2019 in IA No.2799 of 2018 was filed for restoring IA No.2799 of 2018 delay of 45 days which was dismissed by the Learned DRT. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that they are third party of the proceedings filed O.S. No.243 of 2017 with the 5th Additional District Judge R.R. District for declaration and injunction. Evidence was adduced Arguments were heard and judgment was reserved.

¶10

On 3/1/2018 petitioner received the notice from Recovery Officer, DRT-I, Hyderabad. They have not received any notice of O.A.No 326 of 2017.They were under the impression that the file is in Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Hyderabad but it was sent back to DRT-I, Hyderabad. Due to oversight they could not verify the same in

¶11

¶12

the Section. They were also suffering from fever. Petition was dismissed in default. Learned Counsel submits that delay in moving this application is not intentional rather bonafied.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that ground for condo nation of delay is not believable.

¶14

Appellant were under an impression that the file is with the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad. However, appellant were suffering from fever also, hence the delay of 45 days is well explained. It should have been condoned. Accordingly appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Appeal is allowed Impugned order dated 14/05/2019 is set aside subject to payment of Rs,20,000/- as cost to be deposited to the “State Legal Services Authority”

¶17

Learned DRT-1 Hyderabad is directed to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law after given an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶18

Accordingly Appeal being Appeal No.45 of 2019 is disposed of.

¶19

File be consigned to the record room.

¶20

Order be uploaded on the website.

¶21

(Judgment dictated signed and pronounced in the open court)

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 11^th July, 2022 16/RC

R. Yadagiri v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Yadagiri v. State 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

Union Bank of India versus Ms Model Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Model Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Model Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ajeet Sahu versus State Bank of India

Sri Bikash Prasad versus Punjab National Bank

Chandan Banerjee versus State Bank of Mysore