Partly allowed

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

DRAT3 Aug 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and for condoning the delay in depositing the requisite amount. The Tribunal directed the respondent to pay an additional ₹10 lakh within fifteen days, subjecting the deposit to the final outcome of the Stay Application.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application for condonation of delay on the direction that the respondent deposits an additional ₹10 lakh within fifteen days.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Misc. Appeal Diary No. 286 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

¶5

Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶6

Mr. Tuna Sahu, Learned Counsel for Respondents

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

I.A. 180 of 2023

¶9

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

¶10

The impugned order was passed on 14^th February, 2023 while the appeal was filed on 26^th April, 2023. Learned Counsel submits that delay was not intentional and was caused while complying of the procedural norms.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Application, being I.A. 180 of 2023, is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

Appeal be registered by supplying regular number.

¶15

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

¶17

Impugned order dated 14^th February, 2023 wherein Learned DRT had extended time for depositing Rs.20.00 lac which was to be deposited in compliance of the order passed by the Learned DRT on 24^th September, 2019 wherein the M.A. 1970 of 2019 was allowed. This amount was to be deposited on or before 24^th October, 2019. It appears that an application for review of the order was filed by the Respondent which remained pending till 14^th February, 2023. On that date Respondent withdrew the application as ‘Not Pressed’. Further Respondent deposited Rs.20.00 lac, in compliance of the order of the Learned DRT, with the Registry of the DRT. Learned DRT by the impugned order condoned the delay in making the deposit.

¶18

Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the instant appeal.

¶19

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that initially an order was passed on 24^th September, 2019 for deposit of Rs.20.00 lac. This order was not complied by the Respondent and the amount was deposited on 14^th February, 2023 with the Registry of the DRT. Learned Counsel submits that as on date an amount of Rs.50.00 lac approximately is due upon the Respondent but under the garb of the interim orders, rather kept the S.A. pending without any further proceedings. It is further submitted that the ground for extension of time was not sufficient.

¶20

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

I find that the compliance of order dated 24^th September, 2019 was made by the Respondent on 14^th February, 2023. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that he is prepared to make a deposit of Rs.10.00 lac in addition to Rs.8.00 lac which is to be deposited under the orders of this Tribunal in Misc. Appeal Diary No. 285 of 2023.

¶22

Learned Counsel for Appellant submits that if the Respondent makes a deposit, as mentioned above, a direction may be issued to DRT to dispose of the S.A. expeditiously.

¶23

¶24

In view of the submission made by the Learned Counsel for Respondent, I find it appropriate that the time extended by the Learned DRT for making a deposit of Rs.20.00 lac may be condoned subject to further payment of Rs.10.00 lac along with Rs.8.00 lac already ordered in Misc. Appeal Diary No. 286 of 2023. Amount of Rs.10.00 lac be deposited by the Respondent within a period of fifteen days from today; failing which, this order shall automatically stand vacated. The deposit to be made with the Appellant Bank shall be subject to the final outcome of the S.A. Deposit of Rs.8.00 lac and Rs.20.00 lac, as ordered by the Learned DRT, will also be subject to the outcome of the S.A. Amount of Rs.20.00 lac deposited with the DRT be also transmitted to the Appellant Bank by the DRT Registry.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

¶26

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents

¶27

and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶28

File be consigned to Record room.

¶29

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

¶30

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶31

Dated 03^rd August, 2023

¶32

02/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.

Ms Luit Commercials versus Punjab National Bank