The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application for substitution and granted interim maintenance of status quo regarding disputed property pending appeal disposal.
The application (I.A. No. 321 of 2022) is allowed; status quo regarding the property in dispute is maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 85 of 2022)
(Arising out of RA 01 of 2021 in T.S.A. 04 of 2021 in DRT-2 Kolkata )
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
21.12.2022
Ashoka Hawai & Shoes Pvt. Ltd.
… Appellant
-Vs-
Indian Overseas Bank
… Respondents Mr. Nimesh Mishra, ld. counsel with Mr. A. Guha, ld. Adv. and Ms. Ishita Ghosh and S. Naskar, ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Onkar Ganguly, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 and Mr. P. Sil, ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 3 to 6, 7/1 and 8.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 321 of 2022
Application for substitution of legal representative of Respondent no.7 who died pending appeal is filed by the appellant. In pursuance of the order dated 08.09.2022 passed by this Appellate Tribunal notice was issued to the proposed legal heir Ms. Farhat Arfin, daughter of deceased respondent no.7 and affidavit of service filed by the appellant today which is taken on record. Respondent no. 5 is another legal representative who is son of respondent no.7 and represented through the learned counsel Mr. P. Sil. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that copy of the appeal was served upon respondent no.5. No objection is filed by the respondent no.5 against the substitution application being I.A. 321 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 to 6, 7/1 and 8 submits that he would like to file objection on behalf of the proposed legal heir Ms. Farhat Arfin within a period of one week. Learned counsel has also raised objection that copy of the substitution application is not served upon proposed respondent no. 7/1. As far as service of copy of substitution application is concerned there are two legal representatives of respondent no.7 who are represented through Mr. P. Sil, ld. Counsel. Copy of the substitution
application is well served upon respondent no.5 which is evident on the affidavit of service filed today. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that substitution application is filed within time from the knowledge of the date of death of respondent no.7. Since there is no objection filed by the proposed legal representative against the substitution application, instant I.A. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the substitution application being No. I.A. 321 of 2022 is allowed. Let the substitution be carried out within two days.
Substituted respondent No.7/1 i.e. Ms. Farhat Arfin may file objection to the appeal within three weeks with advance copy to the appellant who may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 submits that he does not intend to file objection.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for passing interim order of injunction. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties let status quo be maintained regarding the property in dispute till the disposal of the appeal.
List the matter on 20.01.2023 for hearing. Appeal No. 49 of 2021 filed by the respondent bank is also fixed for hearing on that date. Both the appeal will be heard analogously.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 21st December, 2022 09/pkb
Ashoka Hawai & Shoes Pvt. Ltd.
Indian Overseas Bank
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
18 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
