CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2017) 04 DRAT CK 0005

G.L. Gupta vs State Bank Of Mysore And Ors

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 13 April 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Bhasin, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. Nos. 439, 511, 631 Of 2016, 265, 302 Of 2017, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 291 Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 418 words

P.K. Bhasin, J

1.

Today Counsel for the appellant submits that the names of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 may be deleted from array of parties. Ordered accordingly. Let the appellant file an amended memo of parties before the next date. In view of the aforesaid, I.A. No. 302/2017, which was filed by the appellant for substituted service of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has become in-fructuous and it stands disposed of accordingly.

2.

Today Counsel for the Banks submits that in order to avoid delay in the execution of the decree passed in its favour way back in the year 2002, he has no objection in case the application moved by the appellant before the DRT for condonation of delay in filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC is allowed and the appellant is heard on his application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC by the DRT after inviting replies from the Bank. However, he submits that it may be clarified that as far as the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC is concerned the same should be disposed of uninfluenced by the present concession made on behalf of the Bank for condoning the delay without going into the correctness of the factual averments made there in which correctness will be challenged by the Bank at the time of hearing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.

3.

This appeal is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned DRT to now take up the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC for hearing. The order dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands set aside.

4.

Parties shall now appear before the DRT on 27.4.2017 at 2:00 p.m.

5.

As requested by the Counsel for the appellant, he will be at liberty to move any application before the DRT seeking stay of execution and in case any such application is moved the same shall also be dealt with as per law as this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of any aspect of the matter. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Registrar of this Tribunal shall now continue to remain deposited till the final decision on the appellants' application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC by the DRT. Thereafter, the appellant will be at liberty to move an application before this Tribunal for appropriate direction regarding disbursement of that amount.

Record of DRT be sent back with a copy of this order.