Messers Jayceeyel Enterprises v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal because the appellant failed to deposit the requisite statutory amount by the deadline, despite a granted extension of time.
What did the court decide?
The appeal AIR (SA) 1691/2023 was rejected for non-compliance of statutory deposit orders.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 15th Day of April, 2024
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CHAIRPERSON
AIR(SA) 1691/2023
(IA No.3665/2023 in SA 754/2023 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore)
Between
M/s Jayceeyel Enterprises,
Proprietor Mr. M. Loganathan, Door No.40-1277, Ramakrishna Puram, Sathy Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 006.
…Appellant
And
- Union Bank of India,
(Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Branch Office, Ramnagar, No.229, Sathyamoorthy Road, Ramnagar, Coimbatore 641 009.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s Jayceeyel Enterprises, Proprietor Mr. M. Loganathan
- respondent
Union Bank of India
- respondent
The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 331090016912023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · S Ravi Kumar
- Order 2 — this page · S Ravi Kumar
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court