Smti Nalina T v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal allowed condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to the email receipt of the certified order. Regarding the pre-deposit waiver, the Tribunal held the deposit is mandatory. However, allowing the appellants to file the appeal by directing a deposit of 40% of the outstanding debt due.
What did the court decide?
I.A. 83 of 2022 allowed (condonation of delay). I.A. 84 of 2022 disposed of with direction to deposit 40% of the debt due towards pre-deposit.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 127 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
02.03.2023
Smt. Nalina T & Another
… Appellants
-Vs-
Canara Bank & 8 Others
… Respondents
Mr. Arindam Banerjee with Mr. Jibantaraj Dan Roy, Learned Counsel for Appellants
Ms. Aparajita Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. 83 of 2022
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing an appeal is warranted when the appellants received the certified copy of the order after the limitation period.
Whether waiver of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is mandated considering judicial precedents on Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Appellants are entitled to adjust the debt amount with proceeds from the sale of secured assets while challenging such sale.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Smt. Nalina T
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · March
- CNR
- 191090001272022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court