Jasvinder Singh Sohal vs Indian Bank

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2011 Supreme(SC) 170

Supreme Court of India
DALVEER BHANDARI & DEEPAK VERMA
Jasvinder Singh Sohal
Versus
Indian Bank & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24595/2009)
Decided on: 11-02-2011

Important Points

Courts may condone delay in depositing required amounts for appeal and direct the restoration and expeditious hearing of the appeal based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Subject

Civil Law - Appeals and Remedies

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : .

Headnote

Delay Condonation - Appeal Restoration - The court condoned the delay in depositing the required amount and directed the restoration and expeditious hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.80 lakhs for his appeal to be heard by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Failing to do so resulted in the dismissal of his appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court condoned the delay in depositing the amount and directed the restoration and expeditious hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.

Issues: Delay in depositing the required amount for appeal, dismissal of appeal, condonation of delay, restoration of appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay in depositing the amount and directed the restoration and expeditious hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal.

Final Decision: The appeal, which was dismissed in default for not depositing the amount in time, shall be restored to its original number and be heard expeditiously by the Tribunal.

Judgment

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5627/2008.

4. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.80 lakhs as a condition for getting his appeal heard by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Bombay. The Appellant could not deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, hence his appeal stood dismissed.

5. It is not disputed that the entire amount of Rs.80 lakhs has now been deposited by the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay in depositing the said amount is condoned.

6. In the facts of this case, we deem it appropriate to direct that the appeal, which was dismissed in default for not depositing the amount in time, shall be restored to its original number and be heard expeditiously by the Tribunal.

7. This appeal is disposed of with these observations.

Order accordingly.