Disposed

Shilpi Barman v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

DRAT11 May 2026MISC APPEAL/34/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRAT disposed of a banking recovery appeal where the respondent offered a settlement sum. The court directed withdrawal of pre-deposit, return of title documents upon full payment, and deferral of an auction sale.

What did the court decide?

Permit withdrawal of pre-deposit; order return of title documents upon payment of Rs. 9.07 lac; stay auction sale fixed for the day.

Shilpi Barman versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 34 of 2026

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. 739 of 2025 in DRT-II, Kolkata)

¶5

Order No. 08

¶6

11.05.2026

¶7

Shilpi Barman & Another

¶8

… Appellants

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

Mr. Prabhat Sil (Virtual) with Ms. Kakali Samajpaty, Ms. Sangita Jangra and Ms. Sabina Khatun, Learned Counsel for the Appellants

¶13

Mr. Somnath Roy, Learned Counsel for Respondent F.I.

¶14

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶15

Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants Ms. Kakali Samajpaty along with Mr. Prabhat Sil, appearing virtually, and Mr. Somnath Roy, Learned Counsel for Respondents and perused the record.

¶16

After hearing the Learned Counsel for Appellant at length, it appears that there are possibilities of settlement. Accordingly, the matter was discussed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

¶17

At the outset, Learned Counsel for Respondents, Mr. Somnath Roy, would submit that as on date Respondents are ready to settle the account for an amount of Rs.19.50 lac.

¶18

Learned Counsel for Appellant, Ms. Kakali Samajpati, submits that she has already deposited Rs.10.43 lac as pre deposit before DRAT and will deposit Rs.6.50 lac with the Bank within a week and rest amount of Rs.2.57 lac would be deposited by 10^th of June, 2026 with the Bank. It is further stated that the amount of pre deposit made by

¶19

¶20

the Appellant may be withdrawn by the Bank and may be adjusted in the settlement amount.

¶21

Accordingly, on the basis of the statement made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, appeal is disposed of.

¶22

Registrar is hereby directed to permit the Respondents, Financial Institution, to withdraw the amount of pre deposit made by the Appellants.

¶23

It is expected that on deposit of the total amount of Rs.9.07 lac by the Appellants, Respondent Bank shall return the title documents to the Appellants and all the proceedings will also be withdrawn by the Respondent Bank.

¶24

It is submitted by the Financial Institution that the sale is already scheduled for tomorrow.

¶25

In view of the above statement, Financial Institution would not conduct the sale fixed for tomorrow.

¶26

File be consigned to Record room.

¶27

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶28

Order pronounced in open Court.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶30

Dated: 11^th May, 2026 10/ac

Shilpi Barman v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpi Barman v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Kalinga Poly Pack (P) Ltd. versus Union Bank of India and Ors.

M S Jagityala Ware Housing Private Ltd. versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

M S Jagityala Ware Housing Private Ltd. versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Small Industries Development Bank of India versus Asomi

Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors. versus Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd.

Tapas Kumar Mondal versus Bank of Baroda