Allowed

M S Karimpur Motor v. State Bank of India

DRAT15 Sept 2023REGULAR APPEAL/125/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delegate Bench allowed the condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an impugned order dated July 22, 2022. The court held that no notice was issued for the delivery of the reserved order, constituting sufficient cause for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal, I.A. 442 of 2022, is allowed; delay in filing appeal is condoned.

M S Karimpur Motor versus State Bank of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Diary No. 662 of 2022

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

15.09.2023	M/s. Karimpore Motor & 4 Others … Appellants -Vs- Authorised Officer, State Bank of India & Another … Respondents
	Mr. Nimish Mishra with Mr. Sanjoy Mohanti and Mr. Amit Nath, Learned Counsel for Appellant
	Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee,
	Counsel for Respondent No. 1/ Bank
	Mr. Joy Saha, Learned Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajarshi Dutta and Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Learned
	Counsel Respondent No. 3 Auction Purchaser

¶5

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶6

I.A. 442 of 2022

¶7

Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Impugned order was passed on 22^nd July, 2022 while appeal was filed on 28^th November, 2022.

¶8

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that the impugned order was not within his knowledge. He came to know about it on the 10^th of November, 2022 when another appeal, being Appeal No. 43 of 2022, preferred by the Bank against order dated 11^th July, 2022, came up for hearing. At

¶10

¶11

the time of preparing the same it came to the knowledge of the Appellant. He then applied for the certified copy and preferred the appeal.

¶12

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank opposed the prayer.

¶13

Counsel for Respondent No. 3, Auction Purchaser, submits that he is the Auction Purchaser who purchased the property and has invested approximately a sum of Rs.5.00 crore a year back. It is further submitted that in the order itself it is mentioned that the order is dictated, corrected and pronounced on 22^nd July, 2022 in presence of Mr. Gaurav Singh, Learned Counsel for the SARFAESI Applicant and Learned Counsel for Defendant Bank. Hence it cannot be accepted that the Appellant was not in the knowledge of the impugned order.

¶14

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶15

In the impugned order itself at the top name of Learned Counsel for Applicant, Mr. Nimish Mishra, Mr. Sanjay Mohanti and Mr. Amit Nath are mentioned. It appears that Mr. Gaurav Singh was not the Counsel in the SARFAESI Application before the Learned DRT. Further the record shows that there is nothing on record to show that 22^nd July, 2022 was fixed for delivery of the order which was kept reserved by the Learned DRT on 11^th July, 2022. When a judgment and order is being delivered notice should have been issued or given to the parties or their Counsel. But in

¶16

¶17

the present case, there is nothing on record to show that a notice was ever issued to the Learned Counsel for the parties for the delivery and pronouncement of the impugned order.

¶18

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that Appellant came to know about the impugned order on 11^th November, 2022 when another appeal, against the order dated 11^th July, 2022 preferred by the Bank, was fixed for hearing. At the time of preparing the same, impugned order, which was filed by the Bank, came to the knowledge of the Appellant.

¶19

Having considered the submission I find the ground to be sufficient that the impugned order was not passed in presence of the Appellants, no notice was issued to them for fixing the date for delivery of the order. Accordingly, there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Application being I.A. 442 of 2022, is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶20

List on 20^th September, 2023 for hearing of the waiver application, I.A. 443 of 2022.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶22

Dated 15^th September, 2023 03/ac

M S Karimpur Motor v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S Karimpur Motor v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rushnlo Kemp versus Vijaya Bank

Ms Bhavani Industries versus State Bank Of India

Beldi Sridhar and Anr. versus Indian Bank

Sri Lakhendar Singh and Anr. versus Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.

Asset Advisory Services India Private Limited versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ganga Ravi Kumar versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)