Allowed

Maa Ganga Back World v. Canara Bank

DRT19 Jul 2022MA/7/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of the Labour Appellate Tribunal allowed an application to restore a dismissed Special Adjudication (SA) No.55/20 after applicants deposited the required security amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, noting that the Tribunal had not fixed a specific time limit for the deposit.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to restore dismissed SA No.55/20 and list it for further hearing after applicants filed deposit receipts.

Maa Ganga Back World versus Canara Bank — Service and Employment | DRT (2022)

PAGE No.

CONTD. ORDER.SHEET

CASE No.

DATE	DESCRIPTION OFTHEORDER	REMARK
MA07t22 't9t07/2?	ShriNasirAhmed, AdvfortheAppticants Shri AshishDixit,Advfor theNon-Applicant
	lANo.755122dated cons'ideration. 05105/22istakenupfor ApplicantCounselbyinviting attention of thisBench on orderdated28104/22passedbythisTribunatsubmits thatasper directionunder para-8oftheorder,the appticantshavedepositedRs.2,50,000/-withthe Respondent-Bankthoughhasnotdepositedtitt 04/05122buthasdeposited on24105127Rs.'1,50,000/- andfurtheramountRs.1,00,000/-on25105172 and atso praysforregistrationofthemain5Aasperorder dated28/04/22. Respondentcounsetby taking objectionsubmitsthat sincetheappticantshavenotdepositedordered amountonorbefore04/05122thereforeapplicants coutdnottakenadvantageoftheorderdated 28104/22which isperemptory orderandatso submits thatsincetheappticants havenotdepositedamount withintime fixedby this Tribunal thereforeSAshoutd notberestored, Ontheotherhand AppticantCounseIbyinviting attentionofthisBenchonPara-8oftheordersubmits thatthoughtheTribunaIhasorderedtodeposit amountRs.2,50,000i^-forrestorationofthedismissed 5A asconditionpresentbuthasnotfixedanytimelimit fordepositingtheamount. AppticantCounsel atsosubmitsthatwhichdirectionis given underpara-11thatisinregardstoBankis free fortaking actionafter04/05/22 thereforeobjection raised bytheRespondentCounsel isfutile. Afterhearing boththecounsels and on perusaloforder daled28/04122inopinionofthisBenchsince applicantsareatreadydepositedRs.2,50,000/- thereforetheydeservesopportunityofhearingon dismissedSANo.55/20. PrayerofAppticantCounselis atlowed.Appticantsare directedtofitedepositing receiptswiththeregistry andthe registryisdirectedtorestorethedismissedSA No.55/20 andbeIistedforfurtherhearing.

PAGE No

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET

CASE No

DATE	DESCRIPTION OFTHEORDER	REMARK
	ThisA4Ais disposed^{ofaccordingtymay tagwithSA.} (RamNiwas Patet) Presidingofficer

Maa Ganga Back World v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maa Ganga Back World v. Canara Bank

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

Similar cases

Ms Mahadev Guest House versus Hdb Financial Serviced

Rbl Bank Limited versus Sahayog Clean Milk Pvt. Ltd.

Messers Maruti Steel Tubes versus Asrec (India) Limited

Sandeep Banjari versus Muthoot Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt Richa Kedia versus Central Bank of India

Ms Manish Yadav versus Canara Bank