Nap Leathers Pvt. Ltd. v. Arcil
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal adjudicated two miscellaneous applications filed by the Appellant. It allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, held no pre-deposit was required for the appeal filed against a dismissal of a counter claim, and allowed the application for recall of the Registry order.
What did the court decide?
Admitted the appeal and permitted the parties to file opposition and rejoinder.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(M.A. Dy. No.615 of 2022)
(Arising out of Dy. No. 14 of 2019 in O.A. No. 1244 of 1999 in DRT-1 Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
22.02.2023 M/s NAP Leathers Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant -VsARCIL ….Respondents Mr. Rama Krishna Annavajjula, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Pratik Ghosh, Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Roy Chowdhury, Learned Counsel for the Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 411 of 2022 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Impugned order was passed on 22.11.2018 while the Appeal was filed on 23.01.2019. It is submitted that the delay was not intentional. Rather it was due to the illness of Learned Counsel. Prayer is opposed.
Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 411 of 2022 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
I.A. No. 410 of 2022 application for waiver filed by the Appellant. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appeal has been preferred against an order passed on 22.11.2018 wherein the counter claim filed by the Appellant
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing the appeal is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to illness of learned counsel.
Whether a pre-deposit is required when the appeal is filed against a dismissal of a counter claim.
Whether an application for recall of the Registry order to extend time for compliance should be entertained.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s NAP Leathers Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
ARCIL
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · February
- CNR
- 191090006152022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court