Bank of Baroda v. Shivani Gupta
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for restoration of an earlier dismissed OA concerning public money recovery, condoning the three-month delay.
What did the court decide?
Impugned OA No.915/2018 restored to its original position despite three-month delay.
What the court decided
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
| Dateof orderor lroceedin' |
Order withsignatureofcourt | Officeaction takenwithdate |
|---|---|---|
| M.A.No.86/2023 09.01.2026 SINo.45 |
Mr. G.S. Mishra, Ld. Counselfor the applicant-bank ispresent. Ld. Counsel for theapplicant- bank is moving MA No.86/2023for |
|
| recall/setting aside order dated 20.04.2023passedin OA No.915/2018.1tissubmittedthatOA was dismissed asnoneappearedon call Ld. Counsel for theapplicantwas |
||
| earlier directed to take stepsfor | ||
| issuance of notice upon the |
||
| respondents, which has been complied. |
||
| It issubmittedthatOA | ||
| n | No.915/2018 was brought bythe applicant-bank for recovery ofpublic money, the public sector bank/Bank of Baroda. It is further submittedthat ifthe OA isnotrestored to itsoriginal position, applicant-bak shall putto loss I have considered submission I find that MA has been brought with delay of three months, however1 in view of fact that OA has been brought for recovery of public money, delay is condoned and MAis allowed OANo.915/2018is restored toits originalposition. |
| OA shall belistedon26.10.2026 forhearing. Order be uploaded on the |
|
|---|---|
| Continued... . PageNo.02 M.A.No.86/2023 09.01.2026 |
Tribunal’swebsite. (Dictated ) |
| (Pravas Kun _ ',lgh) Presiding Officer |
|
| (Veeresh) |
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of three months in filing the present application was condonable for restoration of an Order for recovery of public money.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bank of Baroda
- respondent
Respondents
Coram
Pravas Kungh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court