Disposed

Union Bank of India v. Surya Prabhu Shipping Service

DRAT21 Apr 2022REGULAR APPEAL/53/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the substitution of a deceased respondent being a legal heir, issued directions for lawyers to note compliance in future amendments, and listed the matter for disposal of a Section 5 of the Limitation Act application.

What did the court decide?

Substitution allowed; directions issued forfuture amendments; matter listed for disposal of Section 5 application.

Union Bank of India versus Surya Prabhu Shipping Service — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No.53 of 2018)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 190 of 2010 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

21.04.2022 Union Bank of India … Appellant -vsSurya Prabhu Shipping Services & 3 Others … Respondents Ms. Aparajita Rao, Learned Counsel for Appellant None for Respondents

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.

¶8

It appear that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order dated 29^th August, 2016 which was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by filing different writ petitions; being W.P Nos. 33580, 33597, 33624, 33672 and 33696 of 2016. All these writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 6^th November, 2017. Matter was remitted to this Tribunal for consideration of the miscellaneous applications filed by Appellant.

¶9

One of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court is regarding the fact that one of the parties died on the 7^th of May, 2014; long before presentation of the Appeal.

¶10

On 16^th July, 2014 Learned Counsel for the Appellant filed an affidavit before this Tribunal and submitted that Respondent No. 2, Kolaparthi Satya Surya Venkateswara

¶11

¶12

Rao, who is already a party in the appeal, is the legal heir of Respondent No. 4, Kolaparthi Ramanamma, who died on 7^th May, 2014. Hence no objection is on record. Accordingly, the application for substitution is allowed. Let substitution be carried out by Appellant within a period of one week.

¶13

It is observed that while carrying out substitution and/or amendments of the pleadings, noting by the concerned advocate, indicating that the amendment is being carried out in compliance of the order of the Tribunal, is missing. A note is required to be appended by the concerned lawyers. Henceforth, while carrying out any substitution and/or amendments, concerned lawyer should put a note mentioning that amendment is being carried out in compliance of the order of the Tribunal and put his/her signature with date.

¶14

Let copy of this order be sent to the Registry for compliance in future.

¶15

Since Respondent No. 2 is already a party in the proceedings, issuance of fresh notice is not required.

¶16

In compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, as referred to above, list the matter on 13^th July, 2022 for disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶18

Dated: 21^st April, 2022 06/ac

Union Bank of India v. Surya Prabhu Shipping Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Surya Prabhu Shipping Service

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

Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund versus Datre Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Shree Shyam Tech India Pvt. Ltd. And Others

Model Financial Corporation Ltd. versus Indian Bank Of Ors.

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus SBI

Shri Manoj Jayaswal and Ors. versus Idbi Bank Limited and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Emerald Mineral Exim Private Limited And Anothers