Allowed

Rekha Indur Chhugani v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. & Ors.

DRAT11 Jan 2023MISC APPEAL/220/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal heard an urgent application seeking condonation of delay for bringing legal representatives of a deceased intervener. It condoned the delay on account of the intervening Covid period and dispensed with notice to the bank respondents. The application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay and dispensing with notice to Respondents 2 to 5; application for impleadment of legal representatives allowed.

Rekha Indur Chhugani versus Indian Overseas Bank… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 20/2023 (CoD in LR)

¶3

¶4

Misc. Appeal No. 220/2009

¶5

Between

¶6

Sushil Chhugani … Applicant (Legal Heir of the Intervener)

¶7

In The Matter of

¶8

.... Appellant/s …Respondent/s And

¶9

Rekha Indur Chhugani V/s.

¶10

Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

¶11

Indur Kartar Chhugani

¶12

.... Intervener

¶13

Ms Saakshi Saboo & Ms Vrushali Agarwal, i/b M/s. Raval-Shah & Co., Advocate for Appellant & Intervener.

¶14

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by Appellant for seeking urgent relief.

¶15

The application at Diary No. 424/2022 is for condonation of delay for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased intervener.

¶16

The intervener had filed M.A. No. 803/2009 for intervention. There is a delay of 44 days pointed out by the office in filing this application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the

¶17

¶18

deceased intervener. According to the applicant, a delay is only 9 days but the office calculated a delay of 44 days.

¶19

The first Respondent has been served but none appears. The rest of the Respondent are not been served and the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the notice to them may be dispensed with since they are not the necessary party and would be concerned with the intervention application filed by the Appellant and the rest of the Appellants. Notice to Respondent No. 2 to 5 is sought to be dispensed with.

¶20

The reason stated for the delay in filing this application has been examined. I find that the reasons are acceptable mainly because there was an intervening covid period and moreover, the mother of the Applicant was also affected by covid. Taking these facts into consideration, I find that the delay can be condoned. Hence, the delay is condoned and the notice to Respondent No. 2 to 5 is dispensed with, and the application shall be taken on file. Post the application for impleadment to bring on record the legal representatives.

¶21

Post on 23.01.2023 for hearing

¶22

psa-30

¶23

Rekha Indur Chhugani v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Indur Chhugani v. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. & Ors.

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

Ms Best Agro Foods Pvr Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Namdev Bhagat versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

M/S. Shirdi Country Inns Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Chandrakant Tukaram Pawar versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Sayyad Zameer Sayyad Sailani versus Pusad Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited

Sushil Chhugani in the Matter of Rekha Indur Chhugani versus Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. And Ors.