Disposed

Arunagata Das v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

DRAT5 Jul 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Admission order setting aside Registrar's refusal to admit appeal due to corrigendum defects. Appellant's conduct noted for dilatory tactics. Time granted for supplementary affidavit pending payment of Rs. 50,000 costs to State Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Registrar's order setting aside appeal admitted; one week time granted for supplementary affidavit subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 costs.

Arunagata Das versus India Sme Asset Reconstruction… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Misc. Application Diary No. 392 of 2023

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

05.07.2023 Arunagata Das … Appellant -VsIndia SME Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & 5 Others … Respondents Mr. Meghnath Datta with Mr. Mainak Bose and Ms. Mousumi Pal Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶5

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶6

For Admission

¶7

Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant. It appears that the Registrar, vide order dated 28^th June, 2022, declined to register the appeal for non compliance of the orders to remove the defects noted by the Registrar. Learned Counsel submits that the defects have been removed. Certified copy of the impugned order is filed. Registrar has also noted that the defects have been removed.

¶8

Application for recall of the order is filed long with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act I.A. 237 of 2023. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional rather it was a changed brief. Earlier Counsel could not take steps.

¶9

After considering the submission I find the ground made in the application to be sufficient. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application for setting aside the order of the Registrar is condoned.

¶10

Order of the Registrar dated 28^th June, 2022 is set aside.

¶11

It appears that an application, being Diary No. 44 of 2021 is filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal wherein the order of the Learned DRT dated 12^th June, 2015 is challenged. Record shows that the Appellant is adopting all dilatory tactics. The defects recorded by the Registrar were not removed hence the Registrar declined to

¶12

¶13

register the appeal. Thereafter, application for recalling of the order was filed with an application for condonation of delay in filing the application; which was allowed.

¶14

In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal there is no mention as to how many days delay is there in filing the appeal. Even in the body of the petition, there is no mention about the number of days delay for which condonation is sought for. It shows that the Appellant is adopting all the dilatory tactics to keep the matter pending.

¶15

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that he may be permitted to file supplementary affidavit in this regard.

¶16

Having considered the submission and the conduct of the Appellant a week’s time, and no more, is granted to file supplementary affidavit subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the State Legal Services Authority; if the costs are not paid the application shall stand dismissed.

¶17

List on 12^th July, 2023 for Admission.

¶18

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶19

Dated: 05^th July, 2023 01/ac

Arunagata Das v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arunagata Das v. India Sme Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

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

Ms Hi Tech Agro Product versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Lakshmi Agencies represented by Propreitor by Mathamasetti and OthersLakshi versus Bank of Baroda

Arunagata Das versus India Sme Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Sri Biswajit Sharma versus Icici Bank Ltd.

M/s Sainath Construction a Partnership Firm versus M/s Sainath Estate Pvt. Ltd.

Messers Export and Import Company versus Punjab National Bank