Allowed

State Bank of India v. Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar

DRAT24 Apr 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal is against an order rejecting the request for filing a reply. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting liberty to the appellant to file a reply and dispose of the underlying Special Appeal on merits upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; liberty granted to Appellant to file reply in S.A. No. 179/2021 within two weeks upon payment of Rs. 1 Lakh costs; LA pending stand closed.

State Bank of India versus Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

1 I 5 i

¶2

•i ,MiSt.,Appeji]' Dy-No. 285/2025 :DAted: 24.0412025 This- Appeal is filed against :the order, dated. ■ Sl.O-l'.WSi passed' by Carried Presiding Officer, DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TR1BUNAL- MUMBAI: (SITTING AT -SHENNAi)
DRTV: Aurangabad, in LA. 189.6/2024 in §A No. 179/2021, rejecting the request :df Appellant ! •.Bank for .filing.reply in the 'SA. Learned- Counsel: for Respondents submits; tliat already there ah order passed by -the Hbrifojg; Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai on 224'0/2024 for ■early disposai of S.A.- No.l797202.b The ■reply to .. , SA was not filed, despite ^iyingytjnie.iipr 2y<years. '
Thereafter, Appellant .Bank filed LA, Nd.
1896/-2024 for reception of reply; After: considering, the1 rival subrhissibnsi. the, .Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Aurangabad,, chose,
to dismiss the Application, vide order, dated 21.01..2025, therefore^’this Appeal.

¶3

In the earlier round of litigation against the measures taken, the Respondents filed S.A. No. 123/2013. After contesting it for four years-j the Appellant Bank withdrew the proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, at the instance of said Respondents.

¶4

Learned Presiding Officer chose to impose costs of Rs,75,000/^ on 21.11.2017. The costs is not paid till date. Non-payment of costs is reflected in the order in S,A. No. 179/2021 dated 09.12.2021. The Respondents are interested in early disposal of the S.A. Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that instead of spending time on impleading Application and other formalities, he prays that the Appeal may be allowed giving liberty to Appellant Bank to file reply in the SA and dispose of the Appeal within the time specified, subject to payment of costs Rs. 75,000/with interest*

¶5

In reply to this submission, Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank submitted that the Appellant Bank.is ready to pay the costs.

¶6

i J t i J I

¶7

! f >. t

¶8

In the ’light of arguments advanced by the Learned, Cdans.el for both .parties^ -without going into, merits of tile impugned 'Order,, on the basis of , the .submissions -of the;paEties, this Tribunal -aiiows th’is 'Appealj giving opportunity do Appellant Bank' Jo file reply* within a period of two weeks from today subject, to payment of costs, of Rs. 1 .Lakh to. I the ■Respohdehts, .on Or. before 08.05.-20'25’. On .such .payment the Learned Preliding -Officer, g®, Aurangabadj. is directed to receive the teply; ih jS-A'. No. 179/2021 and dispose of the S.A. :on -merits, nr I I accordance 'with, .law, as expeditiously as 'possible, • preferably within, the period of three months; All ■pending IAs, if any, .stand closed.

¶9

The order shall be* communicated ^immediately

¶10

to the par.ti'es and the: DRT.

¶11

CHAlRPERSCr...... _..?jAWiWr/bHENNAI .
?(j^CHAkdE; DRAt. MUMBAI)
MRS.

State Bank of India v. Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Ms S K Homes versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited

Unique Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Sanjay Chandrakant Jagtap versus Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited

Laksmikant B Pathak versus Hinduja Housing Finanace Limited