Joy Paul v. South Indian Bank and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal rejected an appeal filed by Joy Paul for non-compliance with a statutory pre-deposit order. The appellant failed to pay the balance amount despite several extensions.
What did the court decide?
No further time granted for payment of balance deposit; appeal rejected.
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 DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 18th Day of April, 2024
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CHAIRPERSON
AIR(SA) 1095/2023
(IA 1808/2023 in SA No.269/2023 on the file of DRT-II, Ernakulam )
Between
Joy Paul, S/o N.T. Paul, Nadackal House, Athirampuzha, Kottayam 686 562.
…Appellant
And
- Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Limited Pannackal Buildings, Central Junction, Athirampuzha, Kottayam, Kerala 686 562.
- The Authorised Officer & Chief Manager, South Indian Bank Limited Pannackal Buildngs, Central Junction, Athirampuzha, Kottayam, Kerala 686 562.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed despite the appellant's failure to deposit the required balance amount under the statutory order.
Coram
S. Ravi Kumar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 331090010952023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court