Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Sri Sujit Kumar Singhania Propritor M/s Med Life

DRAT24 Apr 2023REGULAR APPEAL/300/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal condoned a 142-day delay in filing an appeal by Central Bank of India against a DRT order. The court found the delay was not intentional but due to official verification processes and an accident involving the counsel. Costs of Rs. 5,000 were imposed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 142-day delay in filing appeal and registration as regular appeal upon payment of Rs. 5,000 costs.

Central Bank of India versus Sri Sujit Kumar Singhania… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 300 of 2018

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

24.04.2023 Central Bank of India .. Appellant -VsSujit Kumar Singhania, Proprietor of M/s. Med Life .. Respondent Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikder, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Prabhat Sil with Mr. Ajit Kumar Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Dey, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

Application No. 360 of 2018

¶8

Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶9

Impugned order was passed on 7^th May, 2018 by the Learned DRT, Siliguri while the appeal was filed on 1^st November, 2018 with delay of 142 days.

¶10

Learned Counsel submits that delay was not intentional and was caused while seeking approval from the Controlling Office. Thereafter, when the approval was sent to the Learned Counsel, Mr. Pradip Kumar Pal Choudhuri, on 20^th July, 2018 he met with an accident. On recovery Learned Counsel prepared the appeal and sent for the signatures of the concerned Authorised Officer and appeal was filed.

¶11

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, vehemently opposed the prayer stating that no material is filed to substantiate the assertions made in the application. Learned Counsel places reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Guwahati in the matter of State of Assam & Others -vs- Naresh Chandra Das & Others, reported in AIR 1983 Guwahati 24.

¶13

As far as appeal is concerned, impugned order was passed on 7^th May, 2018, certified copy was applied on 20.08.2018. Learned Counsel, Mr. Pal Choudhuri, after completion of the official formalities, received the copies of the papers from the competent authority on 24^th July, 2018; while he was preparing the appeal, he met with an accident and suffered a fracture in his leg.

¶14

As far as initial delay from 7^th May, 2018 to 24^th July, 2018 is concerned they are duly explained in the application.

¶15

Sufficient cause is required to be shown by the Appellant for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Appellant has to satisfy the Court that the reasons were beyond his control so as to file the appeal in time.

¶16

In the present case, Appellant is Bank wherein necessary approval was sought; all the dates are mentioned. On 10.5.2018 copy of the order was sent to the concerned Branch thereafter it was sent to the Controlling Office on 18.5.2018. Controlling Office on 23.05.2018 again asked the Branch to send copies of the relevant papers and other

¶17

¶18

materials to their office. Ultimately papers were sent to the Controlling Office on 19.06.2018. The Controlling Office, thereafter gave their approval to file the appeal. Thereafter, approval was sent to the Learned Counsel, Sri Pal Choudhuri, who met with an accident and suffered a fracture in his leg. In the meantime he applied for the certified copy and the appeal was filed. The chain of events shows that the Appellant was cautiously pursuing its case and there is no deliberate delay. However, since there is a delay, definitely, the Respondent is entitled for the costs. Accordingly, I find the ground as sufficient. Application No. 360 of 2018, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is allowed condoning the delay in filing the appeal, subject to payment of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand) only as costs to be paid within two weeks.

¶19

On payment of costs, appeal be registered as regular appeal by providing regular appeal number.

¶20

List on 16^th May, 2023 at Camp Court, Siliguri for further orders.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶22

01/ac

¶23

Dated 24^th April, 2023

Central Bank of India v. Sri Sujit Kumar Singhania Propritor M/s Med Life

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Sri Sujit Kumar Singhania Propritor M/s Med Life

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

S Jayaram Chowdary versus State Bank of India

Ms Bhavani Industries versus State Bank Of India

Beauty Ghosh versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sonovision Entp

Sri Dharani Enterprises versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms S S Trade Link versus Hdfc Bank