Kamakshi Foods v. a.O.,Bank of Baroda
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal. The court held that the COVID-19 exemption did not cover the delay period prior to the pandemic and dismissed both the delay application and the substantive appeal.
What did the court decide?
IA 197/2021 dismissed; Appeal AIR (SA) 47/2021 rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 20th day of November, 2024
PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON
IA 197/2021 (Delay)
In
AIR (SA) 47/2021 (Arising out of S.A.No.321/2018 on the file of DRT-II Chennai)
Between
- M/s. Kamakshi Foods, Represented by its Partners Mrs. R. Shyamala Devi W/o. P. Sathish Kumar.
And
- P. Sathish Kumar, Son of Parameshwaran, Having Office at No. 27/28, Ayyasamy Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ..... Appellants The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, T. Nagar Branch, No. 10, Rangan Street, (Behind Old GRT) Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondent
Counsel for Appellants : M/s. J. Arun Prasad & P. Ramya Counsel for Respondent : M/s. S. Pandurangan & M. Karthik
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 665 days in filing the appeal can be condoned citing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Whether the period from March 2019 to March 2020, prior to the pandemic, admits of any condonation.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Kamakshi Foods
- appellant
P. Sathish Kumar
- respondent
Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda, T. Nagar Branch
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · November
- CNR
- 331090000472021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
17 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court