State Bank Of India v. United Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal adjourned the matter due to failure to properly serve Respondent No. 2. It directed the Applicant to serve Respondent No. 1 and serve Respondent No. 2 via newspaper publication, imposing a nominal cost.
What did the court decide?
Adjourned to 13 June 2023; Applicant must serve Respondent No. 1 and serve Respondent No. 2 via paper publication with Affidavit of Service within three weeks; Rs. 5,000 cost imposed.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc Application No. 13 of 2020
In Appeal No. 51 of 2014
(Arising out of S.A. 1373 of 2013 of DRT-II, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
28.03.2023 State Bank of India … Applicant -VsUnited Bank of India & Another … Respondents
Mr. Pijush Kanti Ray with Mr. S. Bandopadhyay, Learned Counsel for Applicant
Mr. Nemai Kumar Rakshit, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as Respondent No. 1.
At the very outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the appeal was dismissed in default on 13th February, 2020. Thereafter restoration application was filed on 13th March, 2020 which is within time. But subsequent thereto, Applicant has not taken appropriate steps.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
State Bank of India
- respondent
United Bank of India
- respondent
Another
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court