Disposed

State Bank of India v. United Bank of India

DRAT28 Mar 2023MISC APPLICATION/12/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal adjourned a restoration application filed by a bank against procedural delay and inadequate service on all respondents. The applicant was directed to serve notices and pay costs; failure to pay costs promptly would lead to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Matter adjourned subject to payment of costs and completion of service on all respondents within specified time.

State Bank of India versus United Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Misc Application No. 12 of 2020

¶3

In Appeal No. 52 of 2014

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. 1374 of 2013 of DRT-II, Kolkata)

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

28.03.2023 State Bank of India … Applicant -VsUnited Bank of India & Another … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Pijush Kanti Ray with Mr. S. Bandopadhyay, Learned Counsel for Applicant

¶8

Mr. Nemai Kumar Rakshit, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as Respondent No. 1.

¶11

At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the appeal was dismissed in default on 13^th February, 2020. Thereafter restoration application was filed on 13^th March, 2020 which is within time. But subsequent thereto, Applicant has not taken appropriate steps.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he has not been served with copy of the restoration application. It is also seen from the record that Respondent No. 2 is a private Respondent but no steps are taken for service of notice upon Respondent No. 2.

¶13

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that since Respondent No. 2 was not residing at the given address when notices were sent at the time of hearing of the SARFAESI Application, notices were published in the newspaper. Hence no steps for service upon Respondent No. 2 were taken in the restoration application.

¶14

I do not find this argument acceptable. Respondent No. 2 was added as a party in the appeal which was dismissed in default.

¶15

¶16

Whether Respondent No. 2 appeared in the SARFAESI Application or not is not material. At the time of hearing of the restoration application, he has to be served and steps should have been taken by the Applicant for service upon Respondent No. 2.

¶17

It would be pertinent to note that the SARFAESI Application was filed by the Applicant in the year 2013 which was dismissed by Learned DRT on 4^th March, 2014 and the appeal was also filed in the year 2014. It is a very old matter wherein the record shows that the Applicant, which is a Bank, is litigating a luxurious litigation at the cost of the public money. Such type of attitude could not be appreciated. However, giving an opportunity of hearing to the Applicant Bank, matter is adjourned today subject to payment of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand) only as costs to be deposited in favour of State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal.

¶18

Applicant is directed to serve copy of the restoration application upon Respondent No. 1. Further, service upon Respondent No. 2 be effected through paper publication and file Affidavit of Service within three weeks.

¶19

List on 13^th June, 2023 for disposal of the Misc. Application.

¶20

Cost to be paid within two weeks failing which the restoration application shall stand dismissed.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶22

Dated: 28^th March, 2023 02/ac

State Bank of India v. United Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. United Bank of India

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

Union Bank of India versus Manam Subash Ch

Smt K Shashikala versus Canara bank

Sai Nath Estates Private Limited versus Syndicate Bank

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency versus Saradambika Power Plant Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda and Ors. versus M/s Sunway Infrastructure Services Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Cygnus Equipments and Rentals Pvt. Ltd.