Dismissed

Ms Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

DRT13 Jun 2025SA/361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the special appeal filed by Canara Bank against the sale of an asset. The special appeal was dismissed for default due to the applicant's absence and lack of limitation considerations arising from a prior withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed for default on grounds of non-appearance of the applicant and procedural bar on limitation.

Ms Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Order Sheet Case No. SA 361 of MS DEECON INDIA PVT LTD -VS- CANARA BANK 2022 O Dat f Order with Signature f e of ci e a c the ti o Ord n w er ti h d a t e a n d d a t e d S i g n a t u r e o f P a r t i e s w h e n n e c e s s a r y

¶2

¶3

1 3 .
6 . 2 025 ( S l . N o . 12) (Orde r No. 11)	Ms. Aparajita Ghosh, Ms. Sangeeta Ghosh. …For the Respondent Bank. None appears for the sarfaesi applicant.
	Learned counsel for the respondent bank appears
	and submits that by the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High
	Court (Single Bench) dated 24.11.2022 the writ petitioner
	was directed to approach DRT regarding the matter.
	Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that the
	applicant on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble Single
	Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court filed SA 361 of
	2022 challenging sale of the asset after two years.
	The respondent bank filed appeal before the Hon’ble

¶4

¶5

Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 26.11.2024 disposed of the appeal as the writ petitioner wanted to withdraw the writ petition.

¶6

Therefore, since the writ petitioner submitted before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court to withdraw the writ petition and the SA was filed on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (Single Bench), there is no limitation to challenge the sale of the respondent bank before the Tribunal under Section 17(1) of the Sarfaesi Act. Besides, the applicant is also not present.

¶7

Both, on limitation as well as non-appearance of the applicant, the SA is dismissed for default.

(Ambuja Mohan

Das)
Officer
ac

P r e s i d i n g

Ms Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Deecon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

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

Celebrity Management Group Private Limited versus Uco Bank

Bank of India versus Ms Ruhini Rotopack

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited versus Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited

S R Textiles and Ors. versus Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Castle Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

Shri Mohit Bhukta and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank