M S Springdale Co. Tea Factory v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai considered a waiver application filed by appellants. Finding no representation on the part of the appellants, the court dismissed the waiver application pursuant to non-prosecution, leading to the rejection of the underlying appeal.
What did the court decide?
WAIA IA 668 dismissed for non-prosecution; Appeal AIR 2001 of 2024 rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 15th day of July, 2026
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON
IA No. 668 of 226 (Waiver) in AIR 2001/2024
(arising out of IA No. 3783 of 2204 in SA No. 155 of 2024 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore)
Between
- M/s. Springdale Co Tea Factory, Rep by its Partner Bejoy John, S/o. John Cassia N,
- No. 9/10, Joys Bungalow,
- Near Friary, Kotagiri, Nilgiris – 643 217
- Bejoy John,
- S/o. John Cassia N,
- No. 9/10, Joys Bungalow, Near Friary, Kotagiri, Nilgiris – 643 217
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a waiver application filed in absence of representation is maintainable and ought to be dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Springdale Co Tea Factory
- appellant
Bejoy John
- respondent
The Authorized Officer, M/s. Canara Bank
- respondent
M/s. Canara Bank
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · July
- CNR
- 331090020012024
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court