Mr Satish Kumar v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, holding that ignorance of an ex parte order by a party who participated in proceedings was not sufficient cause. The appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.
What did the court decide?
Application for condonation of delay dismissed. Appeal dismissed as time barred. Order modified to refer to Section 21 of RDB Act.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 27 of 2020
(Arising out of O.A. 717 of 2017 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
27.04.2023 M. Satish Kumar & Another .. Appellants -VsCanara Bank & Another ... Respondents Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. Archan Dutt with Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral and Mr. Subhadip Basu, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. 17 of 2020
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
The instant Appeal, being Diary No. 27 of 2020, is filed by the Appellant, who is Defendant in the O.A. 717 of 2017, against an order dated 30th September, 2019 passed in I.A. 2244 of 2019 dismissing the application for recall of the ex parte order. This application was also moved with a delay of 301 days and the Learned DRT, while passing the impugned order dated 30th September, 2019, dismissed the same.
Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the appeal on 10th January, 2020 with an application for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the appeal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning delay in filing the appeal.
Whether time-barred appeal should be dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M. Satish Kumar
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 191090000272020
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
13 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court