SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Sanjib Banerjee, P.D. Audikesavalu, JJ.
G. Govinda Raju – Petitioner
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Officer & Another – Respondents
C.R.P. No. 1754 of 2020
Decided On : 03-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K. Malathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Suresh, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Notices - Right of appeal - Pre-deposit of amount - Petition challenges an order passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, at receiving stage of an appeal - Order impugned notices that Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakh within four weeks, but pre-deposit had not been made - Held, There is no infirmity in the order impugned. Since an appeal is a creature of a statute and the right of appeal may be hedged with conditions, merely because the petitioner found it difficult to comply with a condition or chose not to comply therewith will not permit any concession to be made for the petitioner - It is meaninglessly submitted that petitioner is now willing to make pre-deposit - C.R.P. is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 19.03.2019 in AIR (SA) 644/2018 DRAT, Chennai in SA No.187/2017 on the file of the DRT-I, Bangalore.)

1. The petition challenges an order dated March 19, 2019 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, at the receiving stage of an appeal.

2. The order impugned notices that on February 18, 2019, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal had directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs.20 lakh within four weeks, but the pre-deposit had not been made. The appellate tribunal holds that since such tribunal had no authority to entertain an appeal unless the deposit was made, the matter was treated as closed, in the sense that the appeal was found not to have survived.

3. There is no infirmity in the order impugned. Since an appeal is a creature of a statute and the right of appeal may be hedged with conditions, merely because the petitioner found it difficult to comply with a condition or chose not to comply therewith will not permit any concession to be made for the petitioner.

4. It is meaninglessly submitted that the petitioner is now willing to make the pre-deposit. Unfortunately, the train has left the station and the train left some time around March 18, 2019, upon the petitioner’s failure to comply with the order dated February 18, 2019 and make the pre-deposit.

5. C.R.P.No.1754 of 2020 is dismissed. C.M.P.No.10841 of 2020 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top