Sri E U Poonacha v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application to condone a delay of 146 days in representing an appeal, noting the delay was due to Office Objections and proof of service was filed.
What did the court decide?
Delay of 146 days in representing the appeal is condoned; appellant to file proof of service.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 78/2022
In
AIR 169/2021
E.U.Poonacha ... Appellant Vs A.O.,Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd ... Respondent
28/06/2022
This Application is filed by Petitioner /Appellant to condone delay of 146 days in representing the Appeal that was returned for complying with the Office Objections.
Proof of service is filed showing as per track report, item is delivered to Respondent Bank. None appeared for Respondent Bank today.
Considering the reasons stated in the Affidavit filed in support of Petition, delay of 146 days in representing the Appeal is condoned. IA 78/2022 is allowed.
IA 78/2022 (delay in representation) is allowed.
Notice to Respondent Bank.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
E.U.Poonacha
- respondent
A.O.,Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · June
- CNR
- 331090001692021
- Bench
- S Ravi Kumar
All orders in this case
17 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court