In the absence of the appellant, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the motion for condonation of delay under s. 5 of the Limitation Act and subsequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
There is no order as to costs.
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. 234 of 2017
(Arising out of TA 64 of 2013 in DRT- 3 Kolkata)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
09.02.2023
Amitava Roy & Ors.
… Appellant -VsBank of India
… Respondents None for the appellant. Ms. Aparajita Rao, ld. counsel for respondent .
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Matter is taken up in the revised list.
Appellant has filed I.A. No. 243 of 2017 u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
No one is present for the appellant.
I.A. No. 243 of 2017 is dismissed for default.
Accordingly, instant appeal is also dismissed as time barred. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 09 February, 2023 03/pkb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal is condonable under s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite the failure to condone delay.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amitava Roy & Ors.
Bank of India
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
