Canara Bank v. Ms Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge order mentions potential delay tactics by respondent but grants listing for appeal hearing while stating no further adjournments.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appeal No. 310 of 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
02.03.2023
Canara Bank
… Appellant
-VsM/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd.
… Respondents Ms. A. Ghosh, ld. Counsel for the appellant. Mr. S. Basu Dasgupta, ld counsel for the respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Record shows that intentionally the respondent is keeping the matter pending. On 25.08.2022 learned counsel for respondent submits at the Bar that settlement proposal is submitted which is pending for approval. Today learned counsel submits that he does not know fate of such settlement proposal. However, fresh settlement proposal is submitted in February, 2023. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant bank has submitted on instruction that no such proposal is pending with the bank. Record further shows that respondent has not filed opposition for which time was granted as far back as on 28.06.2019. If opposition is not filed within two weeks, liberty to file opposition will be closed. Appellant may file rejoinder within a week from the date of filing opposition.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Canara Bank
- respondent
M/s. Veekay Smelters Pvt. Ltd.
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
7 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court