Allowed

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank

DRAT13 Mar 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal recalled a previous order dismissing an appeal as not maintainable due to the appellant's habitual seeking of adjournments. While noting the appellant's conduct indicated lingering proceedings, the court granted a chance to contest the appeal but imposed exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dated 18.01.2023 in Appeal Dy. No. 118 of 2019 and listing for further orders contingent upon deposit of Rs. 50,000 as exemplary costs within one week.

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles(India) Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appeal M.A. Dy No. 125 of 2023

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

13.03.2023

¶7

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles (India) Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

… Appellant

¶9

-VsIDBI Bank Ltd. & Ors.

¶10

… Respondents Mr. S. Mitra, ld. Counsel with Mr. F. Jana, ld. counsel for the appellant. Mr. D. Chakraborty, ld. Counsel with Ms. S. Pal, ld. counsel for the respondent.

¶11

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶12

The application for recall of the order dated 18.01.2023 passed by this Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeal Dy. No. 118 of 2019 was dismissed. Order dated 18.01.2023 shows that adjournment was sought by the appellant on the ground that learned counsel is an outstation counsel residing at Guwahati and due to auspicious occasion of local harvest festival Magh Vihu he could not attend the hearing. Record shows that appellant was continuously seeking adjournment in this matter to linger proceedings before this Tribunal. The application for condonation of delay and application for waiver from making pre-deposit are pending since 2019. On the last date of hearing on 14.11.2022 adjournment was sought on the ground of illness of the learned counsel. On that date it was specifically mentioned in the order that no adjournment shall be granted and the matter shall be heard and disposed of the next date. On 18.01.2023 when adjournment was sought through e-mail message it was declined and delay application and waiver application were dismissed for

¶13

¶14

default. Consequently, appeal was also dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the date of hearing he could not be able to attend hearing due to Magh Vihu festival. Learned counsel further submits that minimum three chances should have been given to the appellant to press the appeal. Record shows that appellant sought adjournment on 01.08.2022 on personal ground of his counsel and matter was posted to 30.08.2022. On that date adjournment was sought on the ground that settlement process was going on and matter was adjourned to 14.11.2022. On 14.11.2022 the matter was again adjourned to 18.01.2023 with specific direction that no further adjournment shall be granted. Even if the ground mentioned at Para 8 of the application is accepted, although it is not mandatory, three adjournments have already been sought and granted by the Tribunal. Hence, this ground could not help the appellant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that debt due as on date is Rs.111,48,88,958.42 and appellant is lingering the proceedings by some pretext or other.

¶17

However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant wants to contest the appeal sincerely, I find it appropriate that an opportunity should be given to the appellant since the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. But conduct of the appellant shows that appellant

¶18

¶19

is only interested in lingering the matter and contest the appeal as a luxurious litigation. Considering the circumstances of the case I find it appropriate that exemplary costs should be imposed on the appellant in this matter.

¶20

Accordingly, M.A. Dy. No. 125 of 2023 is allowed. Order dated 18.01.2022 passed in Appeal Dy. No. 118 of 2019 is recalled subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) to be deposited to the account of State Legal Services authorities within one week from today failing which this order shall have no effect.

¶21

List on 22.03.2023 for further order.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

Dated: 13 March, 2023 01/pkb

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles(India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Idbi Bank

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

Smt S Uma Rani and Ors. versus Chennuri Muralidhar Rao

The Authorised Officer Union Bank of India versus M/s. Jai Maakali Fish Farms Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and Fertilizers Co. and Ors.

Satrughan Prasad versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Ms Rajeswari Dairy and Anr.

M/S Ghosh Brothers Auto Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank