Allowed

Indian Bank v. Krishna Kumar and Ors.

DRAT13 Jul 2022REGULAR APPEAL/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal allowed an appeal against a default dismissal order because the lower court had reserved the matter for order but failed to pass the final order promptly. The matter was remanded with an expedited timeline for disposal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the default order quashed, and the matter remanded to the DRT with a directive to be disposed of within two months.

Indian Bank versus Krishna Kumar and Ors. — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Appeal No.61/2021 Arising out of M.A.No.37/2019 (DRT-I, Delhi) In Appeal no. 04/2016 in OA no. 262/1996

¶3

Indian Bank Vs

¶4

Krishna Kumar &Ors.

¶5

13.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice BrijeshSethi

¶6

Present: Ms. Seema Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.

¶7

Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Ld. Senior Counsel for the respondent.

¶8

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶9

Vide this order, I shall dispose of the appeal filed by the appellant for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.08.2021 in MA No. 37/2019 passed by the Ld. PO, DRT Allahabad who is holding additional charge of DRT-I, Delhi vide which the appeal no. 04/2016 was dismissed in default and to restore the same to its original number and stage.

¶10

Perusal of the order sheets of Ld. DRT reveals that arguments were heard by the Ld. P.O. and the case was listed for order on 27.12.2018. However, on 27.12.2018, the Ld. PO was on leave and the case was adjourned to 02.01.2019. On 02.01.2019, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant bank. Certain Clarifications were sought from the Ld. Counsel for the respondent and the case was adjourned to 26.02.2019. Ld. Counsel for the appellant bank was also directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 26.02.2019. However, none had appeared for the appellant bank on 26.02.2019 and the matter was, therefore, dismissed in default.

¶11

Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that since the matter was reserved for order, she was under the impression that the order will be passed and it will not be fixed for any further hearing.

¶12

Ld. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application on the ground that appellant bank was negligent as it has failed to appear despite the fact that case was listed on 02.01.2019 as well as on 26.02.2019.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of order sheet dated 27.11.2018, reveals that the case was at the stage of order. However, thereafter some clarifications were sought but the appellant was not present on the said dates i.e. 02.01.2019 & 26.02.2019.

¶14

In the opinion of this Tribunal, since the arguments were heard and case was reserved for order, the Ld. DRT ought to have disposed of the matter on merit instead of dismissing the same in default even if the appellant had not appeared before it for the purpose of clarification. In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed in the interest of justice and matter is remanded back to DRT1, Delhi.

¶15

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has, however, prayed that since the matter is of the year 2016, the directions may be issued to the Ld. DRT to dispose of the same at the earliest.

¶16

Heard. In view of the fact that this is an old case, let the matter be listed on 25.08.2022 before Ld. DRT-1. Ld P.O. is requested to hear the matter on the said date and if, for any unavoidable reason, it cannot hear the matter on the said date, it be heard within a reasonable time of three weeks and dispose of the same within a period of two months thereafter.

¶17

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶19

-ak

Indian Bank v. Krishna Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Krishna Kumar and Ors.

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

R H Agro Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Canara Bank versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Others

State Bank of India versus Anamika Conductors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Edelweiss Arc Ltd. versus Manish Sharma and Ors.

Ms Kapsons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Idfc First Bank Ltd. & Anr.

D.C.B. Bank Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank Limited and Ors.