Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 07 DRAT CK 1808

State Bank Of India vs M/s Dhaiya Automobile & Anr.

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 8 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, Chairperson
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No.327/2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

12 paragraphs · 468 words

I.A. No. 810/2023 (application for condonation of delay)

1.

The instant application is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay 45 days in filing the present appeal. It is stated that the delay in filing the present appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reasons as stated in the application.

2.

After considering all facts, the delay of 45 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.

Appeal No. 327/2023

3.

The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the DRT-II, Chandigarh in O.A. bearing No. 1685/2021 titled as State Bank of India v. M/s Dhaiya Automobile & another. The impugned order dated 14.07.2023 is reproduced as under:-

OA/1685/2021 STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs M/S DHAIYA AUTOMOBILE AND ORS

14.07.2023

Present: Sh. Rajeev Sagar Advocate for the applicant bank (through Video Conference) None for the defendants

Cost of Rs. 7,000/- imposed vide order dated 15.05.2023, by this Tribunal was to be paid on 30.06.2023, but the same was not paid on that day and even till date. Even service report was not filed on 30.06.2023. Heard. This Tribunal is not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant bank that cost would be paid as sanction with regard to the payment of the cost was obtained recently. In fact, this OA should have been dismissed on 15.05.2023 itself but taking a lenient view, one opportunity was granted to the applicant bank for pursuing the OA. It appears that order dated 15.05.2023 failed to awaken the applicant bank from the slumber. In the circumstances of the case, this OA deserves to be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is ordered accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

4.

Ms. Jaya Tomar, Counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is ready to deposit the cost in pursuance of order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the DRT-II, Chandigarh and the appellant has taken necessary and requisite steps for effecting service upon the defendants before the DRT-II, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1685/2021. Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for appellant is prayed for one opportunity for effecting service of the defendants.

5.

After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 is set aside. The O.A. bearing No. 1685/2021 is restored back to its original number for hearing. However, the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the appellant which is to be paid to the DRT Bar Association, Chandigarh in the A/c No.11152010030160 (IFSC : PUNB0111510) being maintained with Punjab National Bank, Sector 8C, Chandigarh and the receipt of the payment of the cost be furnished before this Tribunal within four weeks. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

6.

The appellant is directed to appear before the DRT-II, Chandigarh on 04.08.2026 for further direction.