The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal corrected a typographical error in an I.A., reading the delay period as 151 days instead of 21 days, and noted the filing of the Bank's defence.
Correction of delay period; Defence filed and recorded; Lists fixed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appeal No. 100 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
24.03.2023 Suman Bhattacharya & Another … Appellants -VsIndian Bank & 5 Others … Respondents
Mr. Nimish Mishra with Ms. Jayshree Saha, Mr. Saket Choudhury and Mr. Sumit ChakrabortyLearned Counsel for Appellant
Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 and 2/Bank
Mr. Anubhav Sinha with Mr. Radhey Shyam Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 3 to 6
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Objection against I.A. 127 of 2023 be filed within two weeks.
A prayer has been made to condone the delay of 21 days which is a typographical error. The error be corrected by replacing 151 days in place and stead of 21 days. The error stands corrected.
Affidavit-in-opposition to the main appeal filed by Respondent Bank is taken on record.
List on 27th June, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 24th March, 2023 11/ac
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the time limit of 151 days for condoning delay in the I.A. be read correctly given a typographical error referring to 21 days.
Suman Bhattacharya & Another
Indian Bank & 5 Others
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
17 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
