Sri Tapas Paul v. Indian Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal noted the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was filed without compliance of the mandatory pre-deposit provision. It directed the appellant to show cause within one week regarding the non-maintainability.
What did the court decide?
Directed the appellant to show cause within one week as to why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of pre-deposit.
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
Appl. Dy No. 688 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
12.04.2023
Sri Tapas Paul
… Appellant
-VsIndian Bank
… Respondents Ms. Sucharita Biswas, ld. Counsel with Mr. Rudra Prasad Sinha, ld. Adv. for appellant. None for the respondent.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
It appears that this appeal is filed u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mandatory provision of Section 18(2) has not been complied with. Appellant to show cause within one weeks as to why this appeal should not be dismissed, as not maintainable, for want of pre-deposit.
List on 19.04.2023 for further order.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is maintainable without compliance of the mandatory pre-deposit provision of Section 18(2).
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Tapas Paul
- respondent
Indian Bank
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court