Allowed

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani v. Authorised Officer, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

DRAT13 May 2022IA/142/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant sought condonation of a 106-day delay in filing an appeal before the DRT, Mumbai. Relying on a recent Supreme Court order excluding the pandemic period in computing limitation, the Tribunal allowed the condonation application and directed registration of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 106 days delay in filing the appeal was granted; Registry directed to register the appeal.

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani versus Authorised Officer, Shriram City… — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI Present :Mr. Justice Ashok Menon,Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 142/2022 (CoD)

¶3

In Appeal on Diary No. 94/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Authorized Officer, Shriram City Union Finance …Respondent/s Ltd.

¶7

Mr. Rohan Chandurkar, Advocate for Appellants. Mrs. Uma Fadia, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated : 13/05/2022 :-

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe dated 12.05.2022 filed by Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶10

I.A. No. 142/2022 is for application for condonation of delay of 106 days in filing present Appeal.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 which clearly states that period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

¶12

and any other laws, which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶13

4 The delay of 106 days is covered in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as reasons stated in application and accompanying affidavit, I am of the view that delay has to be condoned. Hence I.A. No. 142/2022 is allowed and delay of 106 days in filing Appeal on Diary No. 94/2022 is condoned.

¶14

Registry is directed to register the Appeal upon removal of office objections, if any.

¶15

Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that seven days’ prior notice would be given to Appellants before taking any steps.

¶16

Post on 21.06.2022 before Registrar for compliance.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

mks-3

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani v. Authorised Officer, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani v. Authorised Officer, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indostar Capital Finance Limited versus Santos Uttam Sawane

Narmada Cars Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Gangaram Narayandas Through its Prop Shri Kishore Gangaram Lakhwani and Others versus Hdb Financial Services

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. versus Ms Maredia Enterprises

Uco Bank versus M/s. Nyka Steel Pvt. Ltd.