Kum Manukonda Sahithi v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal was allowed. JaRDA directed DRT to implead the appellant as respondent in the pending S.A. filed by the borrower, despite incomplete bid amount deposit, subject to bank's withdrawal of auction notice.
What did the court decide?
Appellant impleaded as Respondent in pending S.A.; DRT to consider bank's withdrawal of auction notice and decide on bidder's rights.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 1063 of 2025 (Arising out of I.A. 578 of 2025 in S.A. 549 of 2023 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)
Order No. 05 12.11.2025 Kum Manukonda Sahithi … Appellant -VsUnion Bank of India & 2 Others … Respondents Mr. Sreyash Basu Dasgupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1/ Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:
For Admission
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as Respondent Bank Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee and perused the record.
Instant appeal is preferred against an order dated 4th August, 2025 passed by Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam in I.A. 578 of 2025 in S.A. 549 of 2023 whereby Appellant’s application for impleadment was dismissed by the Learned DRT on the ground that 75% of the bid amount is not deposited by the Appellant, accordingly, Appellant is not a necessary party in the S.A.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant, being the successful bidder who deposited 25% of the bid amount, has a right of audience in the pending special appeal challenging the auction.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kum Manukonda Sahithi
- respondent
Union Bank of India
- respondent
2 Others
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court