Allowed

M/s Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mill and Ors. v. State Bank of India

DRAT8 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 22-day delay in filing an appeal arising from a DRT in Visakhapatnam, accepting the ground of misconception regarding document requirements.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 22 days in filing appeal is condoned. Memo of appeal to be served on respondent for filing opposition within two weeks.

M/s Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mill and Ors. versus State Bank of… — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 102 of 2019)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 139 of 2006 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

08.08.2022	M/s. Sri Srinivasa Rice & Flour Mill & Another … Appellants
	-vs- State Bank of India … Respondent
	Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Appellant
	Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

I.A. 376 of 2019

¶8

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 22 days delay in filing the appeal on the ground that Appellant was under the impression that the appeal could be preferred by filing free copy of the Memo of Appeal. But later he came to know, through his Learned Counsel, that certified copy is required hence the delay which was not intentional.

¶9

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank orally objected and submitted that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay.

¶10

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find the ground to be sufficient for condoning the delay. Delay for 22 days is condoned. Application being I.A. 376 of 2019, is allowed.

¶11

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submits that copy of the Memo of Appeal has not been served upon him.

¶12

Copy of Memo of Appeal be served upon the Respondent, who, in turn, may file opposition within a period of two weeks with advance copy to the Appellant. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

¶13

List on 9^th September, 2022 for hearing of the appeal.

¶14

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J)

¶15

Chairperson

¶16

Dated: 8^th August, 2022 11/ac

M/s Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mill and Ors. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sri Srinivasa Rice and Flour Mill and Ors. 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

Bikash Biswas versus Punjab National Bank

M S Radient Bastralaya versus Uco Bank

Maa Shanti Rice Industries And Others versus Bajaj Finance Ltd. and Anr.

State Bank of India versus Ms Asha Stimex Ltd. and Anr.

State Bank of India versus Smt Asha Debnath and Ors.

Grihum Housing Finance Ltd. And Anr. versus Chitti Boina Rama Rao and Ors.