Smt.Asha.K, v. Authorized Officer
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the DRAT order dismissing the appeal for failure to pay the mandatory pre-deposit. The Court granted two weeks' extension and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.10 lakhs to enable the appeal process.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order of dismissal set aside; two weeks extension granted to deposit Rs.10 Lakhs as pre-deposit; appeal to be processed by DRAT.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.02.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.3232 of 2018 and WMP No.3965 of 2018 Smt.Asha .K ... Petitioner
vs. 1. Authorized Officer, Sree Subramanyeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.565, Ananda Ram Complex, Avenue Road Branch, Bangalore - 560 002.
- Smt.L.Padma
- The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Indian Bank Buildings, 4th Floor, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. ... Respondents
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records in AIR (SA) No.936 of 2015 on the file of the Honourable Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the 3rd respondent herein and quash the impugned order dated 14.11.2017 in AIR (SA) No.936 of 2015.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal acted correctly in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of the pre-deposit order without granting an extension of time?
Whether the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pursue the statutory appeal by allowing time for the mandatory pre-deposit despite the default timeline?
Whether the right of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 requires strict compliance with pre-deposit conditions or allows for reasonable extension in view of Article 300-A?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Smt.Asha .K
- respondent
1. Authorized Officer, Sree Subramanyeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd.
- respondent
2. Smt.L.Padma
- respondent
3. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court