Dismissed

State Bank of India v. M/S the Mother Diagonostic

DRAT3 Aug 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this debt recovery appeal, the Tribunal considered an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was allowed. The appeal challenging an interim order directing a deposit by the debtor was disposed of by dismissing the appeal but directing the deposit within seven days, with the Debt Recovery Tribunal mandated to decide the subsequent application within six

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed subject to the respondents depositing the specified amount within seven days in accordance with the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

State Bank of India versus M/S the Mother Diagonostic — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Misc. Appeal Diary No. 285 of 2023 (Arising out of DND No. 1969 of 2019 in DRT, Cuttack)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

03.08.2023 State Bank of India … Appellant -VsM/s. The Mother Diagnostic & 2 Others … Respondents Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶5

Mr. Tuna Sahu, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 3

¶6

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶7

I.A. 179 of 2023

¶8

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶9

Impugned order was passed on 17^th February, 2023 while appeal was filed on 25^th April, 2023. Learned Counsel submits that delay was not intentional and was caused while complying of the procedural norms.

¶10

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank orally objected and submitted that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay.

¶11

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find the ground to be sufficient for condoning the delay.

¶12

Application, being I.A. 179 of 2023, is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶13

¶14

Appeal be registered by supplying regular number. Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. In the impugned order dated 17^th February, 2023 Learned DRT passed a conditional order, i.e. if the SARFAESI Applicant deposits Rs.8.00 lac, the Appellant Bank should not proceed to take physical possession of the secured asset.

¶15

Feeling aggrieved, Appellant Bank has preferred the instant appeal.

¶16

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that no reasons are assigned in the impugned order. Further it is submitted that in the garb of the impugned order, the Respondent is making all the efforts to linger the proceedings.

¶17

Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that he offered to deposit Rs.8.00 lac but Appellant Bank did not accept the same on the ground that an appeal is preferred.

¶18

Impugned order simply grants an interim relief to the Respondent to the effect that if he deposits Rs.8.00 lac Bank should not take physical possession. Further time was granted for filing opposition and hearing of I.A. and S.A. Apprehension of the Bank is that the Appellant would try to linger on the proceedings by enjoying the interim order. In such circumstances, as far as the legality of the impugned order is concerned, a conditional order is passed by the Learned DRT pending S.A., which could not in any manner said to be illegal rather it was passed in the interest of justice. However, it would be expedient that an order is passed directing the Learned DRT to decide the S.A.

¶19

¶20

expeditiously preferable within a period of six months from the date copy of the order is received.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Appeal is dismissed subject to Respondent’s depositing the amount, as directed by the Learned DRT, within a period of seven days from date. If the amount is not deposited within seven days, the order shall automatically stand vacated. If the amount is deposited then the Learned DRT should make an endeavour to decide the S.A. within a period of six months from the date copy of the order is received.

¶24

If any adjournment is sought for by the SARFAESI Applicant without any sufficient ground, Learned DRT would be at liberty to vacate the interim order.

¶25

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶26

File be consigned to Record room.

¶27

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶28

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶29

Dated 03^rd August, 2023 01/ac

State Bank of India v. M/S the Mother Diagonostic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S the Mother Diagonostic

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

Dipak Kumar Giri versus Canara Bank

M/S Omker Rice Mill Mini versus Indian Bank

Abul Hasan Rafique Ahmed versus Housing and Urban Development Corporation

Miss Chaina Nayak versus Brach Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank

State Bank of India versus Smt Asha Debnath and Ors.

State Bank of India versus M/S the Mother Diagonostic