The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an interim application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, imposing a cost condition due to the matter's age.
Condonation of delay of 96 days allowed subject to payment of ₹ 5,000/- cost to DR-T Bar Association within two weeks.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. 597/2013 (CoD) In
Appeal No. 235/2013
Between
State Bank of India … Appellant/s V/s. Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s
Ms Jyotsna Puthran, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr Nilesh Bamne, i/b M/s. A.R. Bamne & Co., Advocate for Respondent
The Appellant has filed this Appeal challenging the order dated 09.05.2012 in Appeal No. 15/2011 filed u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB & FI Act’ for short) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai. 2. There is a delay of 96 days of the filing of the Appeal and I.A. 597/2013 is filed for condoning the delay in filing the Appeal. Reply has been filed and Respondent vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay.
1
which, the application shall be stand dismissed.
Sd/Chairperson
psa-18
2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 96 days in filing the appeal can be condoned?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India
Bank of Baroda
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
