Disposed

Sri Manideep Sen v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT1 Aug 2023REGULAR APPEAL/8/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that an opposition filed out of time, contrary to a specific court order and defective in form, should not be accepted. The matter was referred to the Chairperson-cum-Managing Director of the Bank for appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

The whole matter referred to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bank of Baroda for appropriate action.

Sri Manideep Sen versus Bank of Baroda — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 08 of 2014

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

01.08.2023 Monideep Sen & Another … Appellants -VsBank of Baroda & 5 Others … Respondents Ms. Malabika Roy Dey, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶5

Mr. Rudra Dev Bagchi, Learned Counsel for Respondents/Bank

¶6

Ms. Pallavi Roy, Learned Counsel for Intervenor/Added Respondent

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

Opposition is filed by the Respondent Bank today. This opposition is sworn by one Anirban Sur, son of Late Nikhil Sur, whose occupation is mentioned as presently working for gain.

¶9

At the very outset before hearing the matter on merit, it is being observed that on 17^th July, 2023 following order was passed:

¶10

“ List on 1^st August, 2023 forf hearing on I.A. 266 of 2022 along with Appeal. It is made clear that if objections are not filed within a week, the matter shall be referred to the Chairman and Managing director, Bank of Baroda for taking appropriate steps against the erring officer of the Bank.”

¶11

Despite a specific direction, opposition is filed today. Learned Counsel for Bank states that it was uploaded yesterday. It was not in compliance of the order dated 17^th

¶12

¶13

July, 2023. Furthermore, the opposition itself does not show as to whether it is filed by some Bank Officer or anyone else? Although the Learned Counsel for Bank submits that the deponent is a Bank Officer which is not mentioned in the affidavit. Affidavit itself is defective one.

¶14

In such circumstances, as already ordered on 17^th July, 2023, let the whole matter be referred to the Chairmancum-Managing Director of Bank of Baroda for appropriate action at his end.

¶15

Copy of the opposition is provided to the Respondent as well as to the Intervenor.

¶16

List on 29^th August, 2023 for disposal of I.A. 266 of 2022 and hearing of the appeal.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶18

Dated 01^st August, 2023

¶19

06/ac

Sri Manideep Sen v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manideep Sen v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deepak Agarwal And Another versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Epitome petrochemical Pvt. Ltd.

Manne Srinivas versus State Bank of India

Stressed Asset Stabilisation Fund versus Antartica Ltd.

Ms Bhavani Industries versus State Bank Of India

Ms Bhawani Industries versus State Bank Of India