Disposed

M/S Marboh Bamboo Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRAT29 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/48/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing an appeal arising from a DRT order allowing an OA. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 35% of the decretal amount within four weeks instead of the minimum 25%, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The order references another pending appeal (Diary No. 121 of 2019).

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed. Appellant directed to deposit 35% of decretal amount within four weeks; otherwise appeal dismissed.

M/S Marboh Bamboo Products Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 330 of 2020)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 227 of 2016 in DRT, Guwahati)

¶4

THE HON’BLE	MR. JUSTICE	ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
29.08.2022		M/s. Marboh Bamboo Products Private Limited … Appellant -Vs- State Bank of India … Respondent
		Mr. Sanjay Mitra with Ms. Falguni Jana, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
	With	Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jana, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶5

(Diary No. 121 of 2019)

¶6

(Arising out of O.A. 227 of 2016 in DRT, Guwahati)

¶7

M/s. Marboh Bamboo Products Private Limited … Appellant -Vs- State Bank of India … Respondent
Mr. Sanjay Mitra with Ms. Falguni Jana, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jana, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

I.A. 191 of 2020

¶10

The instant application is for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against judgment and order dated 19^th February, 2019 passed by Learned DRT, Guwahati whereby O.A. 227 of 2016, filed by the State Bank of India, was allowed and the counter claim was dismissed. This appeal was preferred on 16^th September, 2020.

¶11

¶12

It appears that Appellant had filed another appeal, being Diary No. 121 of 2019 against the decree passed in O.A. which was also filed after delay of 8 days and the delay was condoned.

¶13

This appeal was filed subsequently as the Appellant was under the impression that only one appeal would suffice the purpose. But subsequently, on legal advice a separate appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay.

¶14

Since both the appeals have arisen against a common judgment, hence it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, this appeal should also be heard along with the appeal, being Diary No. 121 of 2019.

¶15

Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned and is condoned. I.A. 191 of 2020 is disposed of.

¶16

I.A. 425 of 2019

¶17

The instant application is for waiver of pre deposit. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that due to financial crunch of the Appellant be permitted to deposit minimum 25% of the amount as provided under the Act. Having gone through the record, I find that the O.A. was allowed for a amount of Rs.36,37,472.43, hence keeping in view the submission mate by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as the financial condition of the Appellant, he is directed to deposit 35% of the decretal amount within a period of four weeks; failing which appeal shall stand dismissed as not maintainable.

¶18

List on 4^th November, 2022 for further orders along with Diary No. 121 of 2019..

¶19

Copy of this order be retained in Diary No. 121 of 2019.

¶20

Dated: 29^th August, 2022 02/ac

¶21

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

M/S Marboh Bamboo Products Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Marboh Bamboo Products Pvt. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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.

Sri Ravichandra Granite Industries versus Canara Bank

The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank versus Messers Vms Ferro Alloys Private Limited

Pallam reddy Indira versus State Bank Of India