Anil Kumar Gupta v. Balaka Bajpeyi and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 raised maintainability of a review application. The tribunal directed issuance of notices, time limits for opposition, and adjourned hearing, reserving maintainability for final hearing.
What did the court decide?
Direct notice to other respondents and fixing time limits for filing opposition and rejoinder on the review application.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Misc. Appl Dy. No. 208 of 2023 in Appeal No. 25 of 2021) (Arising out of Appeal No. 04 of 2018 in DRT -3 Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
| 12.04.2023 | Balaka Bajpeyi … Appellant -Vs- Union Bank of India & ors ….Respondents |
|---|---|
| Mr. A.K. Dhandhania, Learned |
|
| Senior Counsel Mr. D. Basu Roy, | |
| Ms. S. Podder, Ms. S. Basu, Ms. | |
| Debdatta Chakraborty, Learned | |
| Counsel for the Appellant | |
| Mr. P. Pal, Learned Counsel for | |
| the Respondent No. 2 | |
| Mr. S. Pal Chowdhury, Learned | |
| Counsel for Respondent No. 3 |
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Admission
At the very outset Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 raised the plea of maintainability of the Review application.
Appellant should serve the copy upon the Respondents. Notices be issued to other Respondents. Opposition may be filed within four weeks with copy to the Appellant who may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Affidavit of service be filed within two weeks.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Balaka Bajpeyi
- respondent
Union Bank of India and ors
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 191090002082023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court