The Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of a 222-day delay in filing a restoration petition, finding the respondent bank negligently vigilant and not entitled to special treatment despite its public sector status.
I.A. 398/2013 for condonation of delays stands dismissed.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 398/2013 (CoD)
In M.A. No. 397/2013 (Restoration)
In
(Appeal No.-165/2007-Disposed of)
Between
State Bank of India … Appellant/s V/s. Anjali Vaidya & Anr. …Respondent/s
Mr Pravin Patel, Advocate for Appellant. Mr V.S. Giramkar, Advocate for Respondents.
-: Order dated: 22/11/2022:-
I.A. No. 398/2013 Filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone 222 days of delay in filing M.A. No. 397/2013 an application for the restoration of two similar applications dismissed earlier. M.A. No. 214/2011 is an application for restoration of Appeal No. 165/ 2007 on the files of this Tribunal which was dismissed a 2nd time for similar default non-appearance of the Appellant on 24/01/2011. There was again a delay in filing M.A. No. 214/2011 for restoration and hence, M.A. No. 215/2011 was filed for condoning the delay in filing it. The two applications namely M.A. Nos. 214 and 215/2011 came for consideration before this Tribunal on 02/08/2012. The Appellant was again absent repeatedly, as a consequence of which, both the applications were dismissed for default and the appeal was not restored. The Appellant has filed the
1
present two applications to get M.A. Nos. 214 and 215/2011 for restoration and condonation of delay restored to file to ultimately get the Appeal No. 165/2007 restored to file.
“7. Applicant bank is situated at Nagpur and the said branch depended solely upon the earlier advocate to safeguard the interests of the Applicant bank. It is submitted that the Applicant came to know about the dismissal of the said appeal and even the said restoration application recently in March 2013.
- It is submitted that due to the non-attendance of the earlier Lawyer the requisite appeal came to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Applicant bank being situated at Nagpur depended upon
2
the said Lawyer of Nagpur to deal with the matter who has failed in his duty.”(sic)
3
rights’, as says the Latin maxim Vigilantibus Non-Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt.
Hence I find that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay of 222 days in filing M.A. No. 397/2013 for restoration, and hence, I.A.398/2013 for condonation of delays stands dismissed.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-01
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is sufficient cause to condone a delay of 222 days in filing an application for restoration.
Whether a public sector bank entitled to special treatment regarding limitation periods.
State Bank of India
Anjali Vaidya & Anr.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
