The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, heard an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Chairperson found the reasons reasonably explained and condoned the 12-day delay, listing the appeal for hearing while keeping the interim order in force until the next date.
The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
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. No. 649/2023 (CoD)
In
Appeal No. 21/2023
Between
Chandrikaprasad Hira Gupta … Appellant/s V/s.
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
…Respondent/s
Ms. Divya Vishwanath, i/b M/s. Som Sinha & Associates, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Akshaya P., i/b M/s. S.K. Singhi & Partners, Advocate for Respondents.
-: Order dated: 20/09/2023:-
This is an application for condonation of a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. The Respondent has vehemently opposed this application stating that the reasons stated for condoning the delay are no sufficient.
Heard both sides.
On going through the reason stated for the delay, I find that it has been reasonably explained and hence, the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
The appeal has already been taken on file and the reply to the appeal has also been filed.
Rejoinder, if any shall be filed.
Post on 23.11.2023 for hearing.
Interim order shall continue till the next date of hearing.
Sd/Chairperson
psa-20
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condonable.
Chandrikaprasad Hira Gupta
Bank of Baroda
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
