Bank of India v. Surendra Sah and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Division Bench listed an appeal challenging the Debts Recovery Tribunal's finding regarding the calculation of the 60-day notice period. The court adjourned the matter, noting the appellant's reliance on a High Court judgment, for hearing on 01.08.2023.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 102/2021 Date: 24.05.2023
Bank of India Vs. Surendra Sah and Ors.
Present: Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the appellant, Shri N. K. Singh, counsel for the respondent no. 1, Shri Shubham Agrawal, counsel for the respondent no. 4, Ex-parte against the respondent no. 2,
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the DRT, Patna in the order impugned that the mandatory 60 days’ notice will be counted from the date of notice is not correct in view of the provisions of law as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in CWJC No. 15468 of 2012 – M/s Tirupati Storage and Allied Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The United Commercial Bank decided on 19.10.2012. The learned counsel has referred to para 15 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that 60 days would be counted from the date of service of notice, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4-Auction Purchaser adopts the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 prays for time to prepare the matter.
List this case on 01.08.2023 for hearing.
Justice R. D. Khare
Chairperson
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the mandatory 60 days' notice period is calculated from the date of notice or the date of service.
Whether the finding of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is correct in law.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bank of India
- respondent
Surendra Sah
- respondent
Respondent no. 4
- respondent
Respondent no. 2
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · May
- CNR
- 091090001022021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court