Partly allowed

M/s Growdyne Techzone Service Ltd. and Ors. v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

DRAT8 Mar 2023MISC APPEAL/115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of an application seeking extension of time to file written statements. However, it reduced the imposed costs from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 and granted liberty for the appellant to be heard on merits despite the procedural default.

What did the court decide?

Costs reduced from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000; appellant granted liberty to be heard on merits despite non-filing of written statement.

M/s Growdyne Techzone Service Ltd. and Ors. versus… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 115/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Growdyne Techzone Service Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. …Respondent/s Ltd. & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Vivek Vasant Phadhke, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Ms. Ishita Advani, i/b M/s. Desai & Diwanji, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶8

Ms. Spenta Havewala, Advocate for Official Liquidator

¶9

-: Order dated: 08/03/2023:-

¶10

The defendants in O.A. No. 441/2016 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) are in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of Interim Application (I.A.) No. 312/2022 which was filed by them to accept the written statements out of time. The Application was filed nearly 60 months after the date of service of the summons in the O.A.

¶11

The Ld. Presiding Officer was justified and dismissing the application for an extension of time because there is no provision for an extension of time to file a written statement beyond the period stipulated as per the statute.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Appeal may be disposed of with the direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to hear the Appellant on the merits of the case, despite not

¶13

filing a written statement, and also prays that the cost of ₹ 10,000/-

¶14

¶15

imposed while dismissing the application may also be recalled.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent has very vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the I.A. was rightly dismissed by imposing of cost.

¶17

On merits I find that the Ld. Presiding Officer justified in dismissal of the I.A. but the cost imposed on the applicant appears to be slightly on the higher side. Therefore, the cost is reduced to ₹ 5000/- and the Appellant also gives the liberty to be heard while hearing the application despite the fact that a written statement is not filed. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of.

¶18

Sd/-
Chairperson

¶19

psa-19

¶20

M/s Growdyne Techzone Service Ltd. and Ors. v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Growdyne Techzone Service Ltd. and Ors. v. Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

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

Allahabad Bank & Ors. versus Sumit Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar versus Indian Bank

Mr. Ramakant D. Kamble & Anr. versus Arms & Anr.

Pravinsinh Mohansinh Solanki versus Pranill P. Jariwalla

Panchratna Bar N Restaurant and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab & Sind Bank versus M/S Digital Leasing & Finance Ltd.