Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
COL BRAHAM KUMAR DHUPAR vs UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK AND OTHERS on 22 July 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.
**ORDER-SHEET** Page No. ....
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN**
**Appeal Diary No. 255 of 2026 Col. Braham Kumar Dhupar Vs Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors.**
**Date: 22.07.2026**
**Serial No. 31**
**Present: Ld. Counsel for Appellant**
**Called out, Ld. Counsel for Appellant present.**
The Appellant has filed this appeal against order passed by Ld. Recovery Officer concerned dated 17.05.2024 and this appeal has been filed on 06.03.2026 i.e. after more than one and half year from the date of order by which the property of CDs has been attached by the Ld. Recovery Officer.
This appeal has been filed after more than one and half years even though appeal may be filed within 30 days from the date of order and the Certificate Debtors may be entitled to file appeal against the order of Ld. Recovery Officer under Section 30 of RDDB Act by complying Section 30-A of RDDB Act. As per provisions of Section 30-A of RDDB Act such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal.
As per award passed by this Tribunal dated 30.01.2019 the Certificate Debtors are liable to repay an amount of Rs.7,60,18,686/-(Rupees Seven Crores Sixty Lacs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Six only) along with pendentite-lite and future interest w.e.f. 01.11.2015. In absence of deposition of amount as per requirement of provisions of RDDB Act the Appeal in question is not entertainable. If the Certificate Debtor wants to proceed further are duty bound to comply the provision of Section 30-A RDDB Act.
Ld. Counsel for Appellant has stated that the Appellants are not in a position to comply the provisions of Section 30-A of RDDB Act even though Appeal has been preferred after a period of more than one and half years beyond limitation under Section 30 of the RDDB Act. Nothing submitted any reason in relation to delay period. The Appeal **ORDER-SHEET** Page No. ....
**DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN**
**Appeal Diary No. 255 of 2026** **Col. Braham Kumar Dhupar Vs Uttarakhand Gramin** **Bank & Ors.**
is not entertainable and maintainable in the eye of law, liable to be rejected. Hence rejected accordingly.
No order as to cost.
Interim order, if any vacated. All Interim Applications are disposed off in the light of above.
Record be consigned.
*If the Appellants are not satisfied with this order may approach Hon'ble Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad.*
(Umesh Kumar Sharma) Presiding Officer DRT, Dehradun
22-07-2026