Samar Ghosh v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay in filing a miscellaneous application for recall and quashed the earlier order dismissing the appeal in default.
What did the court decide?
Delay condoned; order dated 22.04.2022 recalled; appeal restored to original number.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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
Misc. Application Dy. No. 376 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
07.07.2023 Samar Ghosh and anr ... Appellants -VsState Bankof India & ors ... Respondent Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Learned Counsel Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty, Learned Counsel Ms. Tiyara Ghosh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Ms. Indrani Dey, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
The matter is taken up in the revised list.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Learned Counsel for the Respondent 4. Affidavit of service filed is taken on record. All the Respondents are served.
Instant appeal was dismissed in default on 22.04.2022. Application for recall of the order was filed on 03.08.2022 being Misc. Application Diary No. 376 of 2022 with an Application I.A. No. 254 of 2022 for condonation of delay of 65 days in preferring the application for recall.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that delay in filing the application for recall is not intentional. Rather on the date fixed Learned Counsel could not appear and also could not inform the Appellant. Hence, Appellant could not
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Samar Ghosh and anr
- respondent
State Bank of India & ors
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