Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Ace Graphics Trade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRAT17 Mar 2023REGULAR APPEAL/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay was attributed to a misconception by the appellant's counsel regarding obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order, which the court found to be sufficient cause. The appeal registration is conditional upon cost deposit.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 342 of 2022 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act allowed subject to deposit of cost of Rs. 5,000/- within a week.

State Bank of India versus Ms Ace Graphics Trade… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Dy. No. 504 of 2022)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. No. 409 of 2022 in DRT -III Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶5

CHAIRPERSON

¶6

17.03.2023

¶7

State Bank of India & Anr … Appellant -VsACE Graphics Trade Pvt. Ltd. & 2 ors ….Respondents

¶8

Mr. Swarup Banerjee, Learned Counsel, Mr. H.C. Yadav, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Dhiman Kr. Sengupta, Learned Counsel, Ms. S. Saha, Learned Counsel for the Respondent

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

I.A. No. 342 of 2022 application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Impugned order was passed on 18.05.2022 while the Appeal was preferred on 14.09.2022.

¶11

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the delay was not intentional. Rather, it was due to the resolution passed by the DRT/DRAT Bar Association regarding non-appearance of the Learned Counsel before the Ld. DRT-3 Kolkata. Due to some misconception even after when the Ld. Presiding Officer’s term came to an end, Appellant could not apply and his Counsel applied for copy

¶12

¶13

on 24.08.2022. Learned Counsel submits that it was not the fault of the Appellant rather due to the fault of Ld. Counsel, Application could not be made. Reliance is placed upon para No. 25 of Judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1669 of 2020 Sabarmati Gas Limited Vs. Shah Alloys Limited.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the prayer and said that no sufficient cause is shown in the application for condonation of delay.

¶15

Having considered the submissions made by the parties, I found that there are genuine grounds for not applying within limitation period for certified copy of the impugned order. Accordingly, ground taken by the Appellant is sufficient. I.A. No. 342 of 2022 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) as cost to be deposited within a week.

¶16

After depositing the cost, Appeal be registered as a regular appeal by providing a regular appeal number.

¶17

Respondent may file the opposition within four weeks with copy to the Appellant who may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

¶18

List on 12^th June, 2023 for hearing of Appeal.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶20

Dated 17^th March, 2023 1/tp

¶21

State Bank of India v. Ms Ace Graphics Trade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Ace Graphics Trade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vasantha Arumugam versus South Indian Bank

Ms Eluri Co. operative Urban Bank Ltd. versus Sri Gajavalli Kishore

Ms Vibha Agrotech Limited And Others versus Punjab National Bank

Swadesh Ranjan Das versus Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

Smt N Deepa versus Union Bank of India

Manne Srinivas versus State Bank of India