Partha Sarathi Pal Chowdhury and Anr. v. Allahabad Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
In the absence of the appellants, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, consequently dismissing the time-barred appeal as infructuous.
What did the court decide?
IA No. 120 of 2020 dismissed; Appeal No. SA 494 of 2018 dismissed as time barred.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 437 of 2019
(Arising out of S.A. 494 of 2018 in DRT-III, Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
04.07.2023 Partha Sarathi Pal Chowdhury & Another … Appellants -VsAllahabad Bank & Another … Respondents
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Matter is taken up in the revised list. None is present for the Appellants.
I.A. 120 of 2020
The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Since none is present to press the application, I.A. No. 120 of 2020 is dismissed in default.
Accordingly, the appeal, being Diary No. 437 of 2019, also stands dismissed as time barred.
Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand dismissed, being infructuous.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the appeal filed as time barred should be allowed or dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Partha Sarathi Pal Chowdhury & Another
- respondent
Allahabad Bank & Another
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · July
- CNR
- 191090004372019
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court