Punjab National Bank v. Mr Jeetendra Gandhi
Case brief
What is this about?
In IA-71/2021, the appellant bank sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a DRT order. The tribunal excluded the review period but found an unexplained residual delay, leading to dismissal.
What did the court decide?
The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected with no order as to costs.
What the court decided
IA-71/2021 in AIR (SA) 146/2020
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 29th of March, 2023
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
IA-71/2021
in
AIR (SA) 146/2020
[TSA No.47/2017 on the file of DRT-II, Bengaluru]
Between
The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Bangalore City Branch, Vokkaligara Sangha Building, Hudson Circle, Bangalore – 560 027.
……Petitioner/Appellant
And
Mr. Jeetendra Gandhi, S/o Late Mr. K. L. Gandhi, Proprietor M/s. Gandhi Iron & Steel, No.44/1, New Gangammachari Street, Motinagar City Market, Bangalore – 560 002.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing an appeal is permissible when the period during review proceedings is excluded but a residual delay of 47 days remains unexplained.
Whether the bona fide filing of a review application constitutes a sufficient explanation for the entire delay in filing an appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Bangalore City Branch
- respondent
Mr. Jeetendra Gandhi
Coram
Justice S. Ravi Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
20 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court