Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SRI SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY vs MS.STANDARD ISPAT LIMITED on 4 August 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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 660 of 2026 Order No. 04 04.08.2026 Santosh Kumar Pandey & 2 0thers … Appellants -Vs- M/s. Standard Ispat Limited & 4 Others … Respondents Mr. Nemani Srinivas with Mr. Nimish Mishra (Virtual),
Ray, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee with
Counsel for Respondent No.2/Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited
Jana, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5
With Misc. Appeal Diary No. 694 of 2026 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited … Appellant -vs- Santosh Kumar Pandey &
0thers … Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee with
Appellants
Mr. Nemani Srinivas with Mr. Nimish Mishra (Virtual),
Ray,
Jana, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5 With Misc. Appeal Diary No. 730 of 2026 Bluesky Property Ventures LLP .. Appellant -vs- Santosh Kumar Pandey &
0thers
Jana, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Nemani Srinivas with Mr. Nimish Mishra (Virtual),
Ray, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3
Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee with
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: For Admission All these three appeals have arisen against order dated 10.6.2026 passed by Learned DRT-II, Kolkata in an amendment application whereby an application is partly allowed.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Securitisation Applicant, Secured Creditor as well as the Auction Purchaser have preferred separate appeals. Since the impugned order is common in all the appeals, all the appeals would be heard together. Let all the three appeals be admitted for hearing. Respondent, i.e., Auction Purchaser, Securitisation Applicant or the Secured Creditor, as the case may be, in all the three appeals have been duly represented. Opposition in the appeals by the Respondents be filed within two weeks with exchange of copies. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Learned Counsel for the Secured Creditor would submit that the matter is listed before the Learned DRT on 12.8.2026; proceedings may be stayed as the outcome of the appeal may affect the result of the S.A. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties as all the three parties have challenged the same order, I find it appropriate that the proceedings before the Learned DRT should be stayed till the next date of listing. It is also expected that the parties shall not implement the impugned order till the next date of listing. List on 18th September, 2026 for hearing of appeal. Translated version of the document by Securitisation Applicant is taken on record. Copy of the order be retained in the records of Misc. Appeal Diary No.
of and Misc. Appeal Diary No. 730 of 2026.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated: 4th August, 2026 04 05 & 06/ac