Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 6 January 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW Date of order or proceeding Order with signature of court Office action taken with date M.A. No.92/2023 06.01.2026 SL. No.01 This M.A. has been filed by the applicant for recall of the final order dated 13.05.2019 passed in O.A. No.565 of 2018 by the said order; the OA has been allowed and issuance of recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.3,03,52,518.78 (Rupees Three Crore Three Lac Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen and Paisa Seventy Eight Only) along with pendentelite and future interest has been allowed for recalling of the order. This M.A. has been brought on 10.08.2023 which has been received in the Tribunal on 1 1.08.2023. A detail written objection . has been 'a filed. It is submitted that the MA:hopelessly barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the applicant appeared for DRC No.838 of 2020 and moved objection on 14.12.2021; but, did not file any MA for recalling @he setting aside order in OA. It is further pointed out that any cause of condonation of delay has not been filed. I have considered the submissions I find that this MA has been filed after a lapse of four years and odd and any sufficient cause nay any cause for bringing the M after a lapse of four years and odd is not explicit; hence, the MA is fit to be dismissed on the point of limitation. I further find that in the OA defendant No.3 and 4 had appeared, but did not file any WS.
It has been mentioned that the defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm of which the defendant No.2 to 6 are partners. The defendant No.2 is a father of defendant No.6, defendant No.5 is a daughter of defendant No.2 and the defendant No.4 is a wife of defendant No.3; hence, all the partners are related to each other. In view of the fact, I am considered of a opinion that the MWopelessly barred by limitation and applicant were having full knowledge of the proceeding in the OA. Accordingly, MA is dismissed being devoid of merit. Let the file be consigned to record Cont. . . . .
M.A. No.92/2023 room . Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website. h . ')/ b' (Pravas Kumal ,_ngh)I Presiding Officer b (Dictated) Mu(lish