Case: M/S. NEEL ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Kurian, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short `the DRT) against the notice under Section 13(2) dated 21.08.2014 issued by the respondent Bank under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. There was a delay of 14 days. The DRT declined to condone the delay. The appellant approached the High Court. The High Court relegated the appellant to Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short `the DRAT). The High Court in the impugned order also directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount covered by the 13(2) notice. Thus, aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court. 4. The matter has been pending before this Court for the last two years. The Section 13(2) notice was issued in the year 2014. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case the appellant is permitted to pursue his objection to the notice under Section 13(2) before the DRT.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. The matter has been pending before this Court for the last two years. The Section 13(2) notice was issued in the year 2014. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case the appellant is permitted to pursue his objection to the notice under Section 13(2) before the DRT.