Hdfc Bank v. M/s. Vaibhav Construction
Case brief
What is this about?
During an interim order on an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, the DRAT found the stated ground prima facie insufficient. It directed the appellant to file a specific affidavit from the Authorised Officer detailing reasons and responsibility for the delay within six weeks, with a subsequent hearing listed in June 2023.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 414 of 2019
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
28.02.2023 Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited … Appellant -VsM/s. Vaibhav Construction & 2 Others … Respondents
Ms. Sanjana Nandi, Learned Counsel for Appellant
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. 530 of 2019
In the instant application Appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. Ground for condonation, taken in paragraph 3 of the application, prima facie, is not sufficient.
Let an affidavit of the concerned Authorised Officer, who sought legal advice as well as approval for filing the appeal, be filed specifically stating the reasons for the delay and further why and who is responsible for causing such delay either for approval or for seeking legal opinion. Affidavit of the concerned Authorised Officer should be filed within a period of six weeks.
List on 15th June, 2023 for disposal of I.A. 530 of 2019.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ground of delay taken in the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is prima facie sufficient.
Whether an affidavit of the Authorised Officer seeking legal advice and approval is required for condoning delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the application for condonation of delay is maintainable without an affidavit specifying reasons and responsibility for the delay.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited
- respondent
M/s. Vaibhav Construction & 2 Others
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court