The Tribunal allowed an extension of time for the appellant to deposit a shortfall amount in an appeal fee against a bank. The appeal was not dismissed for default despite partial non-payment due to the appellant's financial strain and the short extension requested.
Extension of time granted to pay the shortfall of ₹3.70 lakhs by April 22, 2024.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 260/2024 (EoT)
In Appeal on Diary No. 1346/2023 Between
Veerji S/o Jessa Patel … Appellant/s
V/s.
State Bank of India & Anr. …Respondent/s Mr. Vishal Tambe & Mr. R.D. Sakhare, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. H.S. Adwant, i/b Mr. S. Adawant, Advocate for Respondents appears through Video Conferencing.
-: Order dated: 15/04/2024:-
The Appellant was directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 35 lakhs as per deposit for entertaining this appeal vide order dated 21.03.2024. On the date of order, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertook to deposit ₹ 5 lakhs on the next date to defer taking over physical possession of the property on 26.03.2024. The submission was accepted and the Appellant was directed to pay the balance of ₹ 30 lakhs in two equal instalments, ₹ 5 lakhs was paid as agreed, and towards the 1st instalment of ₹ 15 lakhs which was due on 12.04.2024 the Appellant could pay only ₹ 11,30,000/- there is a shortfall of ₹ 3,70,000/- towards the 1st instalment.
1
has already been granted and therefore, no further indulgence may be shown.
Post on 23.04.2024 for reporting compliance.
rm-13
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant should be granted an extension of time to pay the shortfall in the deposit appeal fee.
Whether the Tribunal should dismiss the appeal for default in paying the first instalment of the required deposit.
Whether the irregularity in the payment of the first instalment can be condoned under Sections 19(25) of the RDB Act and 148 of CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Veerji S/o Jessa Patel
State Bank of India & Anr.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
