Sri Kannimar Textiles v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed a default application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal because the appellant was absent during the hearing, despite the respondent claiming the debt was settled.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 344/2022 in A.IR:147/2022
Sri Kannimar Textiles V/S Canara Bank
07/11/2023
This Application is filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
This matter is posted to this date for dismissal.
During the call work, some representing Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant sought for pass over and when the matter is taken up for hearing, neither Petitioner nor its Advocate nor the Advocate, who represented during call work, is present
Advocate for first Respondent Bank submitted that an One Time Settlement (OTS) offer was given to Appellant for a sum of Rs.1.65 Crores and finally it was agreed for Rs.1.60 Crores and entire amount was paid by Appellant and nothing survives in this case. Same thing is also averred in the Counter filed on behalf of Bank. Though opportunity is given to Petitioner/Appellant, no interest is evinced in prosecuting the case.
Considering the submissions of Advocate for Bank and the fact that Petitioner/Appellant evinced no interest in prosecuting the matter, Application IA 344/2022 is dismissed for default. Consequently, Appeal A.IR (SA):147/2022 is rejected. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal should be allowed when the appellant failed to appear despite notice.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Sri Kannimar Textiles
- respondent
Canara Bank
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
17 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court