The court condoned a 16-day delay in filing an appeal by the applicant, relying on a Supreme Court order regarding the exclusion of pandemic periods for limitation calculations, and directed the registry to register the appeal.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI
Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 20/2020 (CoD) in
Appeal on Diary No. 20/2022 Between
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. … Applicant/s V/s. Nirvan Birla …Respondent/s
…Respondent/s
This Application coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Ankit Lohia along with Ms. Pooja Batia, Mr. Sachin Chandarana and Mr. Archit Shah, i/b M/s. M. K. Ambalal & Co., Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Rafeeq Peermohideen along with Ms. Somya Tripathi, i/b M/s. T. N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated : 29/03/2022 :-
There is a delay of 16 days in filing present Appeal. The date of impugned order is 21.01.2022 in S.A. No. 24/2015 on the file of D.R.T.–II, Mumbai and the Appeal was filed on 21.01.2022.
The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant 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 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.
Ld. Counsel for Appellants submitted that because of the pandemic situation Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time.
The ld. Counsel for Respondent leaves the delay to be decided by this Tribunal.
Hence, the delay in filing Appeal is condoned
The Registry may number and register the Appeal upon removal of the defects pointed out by the office.
Post on 19.04.2022 before Registrar for compliance.
Sd/Chairperson
dpj-9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020Relied on¶10
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Nirvan Birla
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
