The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an interim application to condone a 52-day delay in filing an appeal, relying on Supreme Court directives excluding pandemic periods from limitation calculations under various acts.
Condoned the delay of 52 days in filing Appeal on Diary No.160/2022.
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.64/2022 (CoD)
In Appeal on Diary No. 160/2022
Between
Prabhu Construction & Anr. … Applicant/s V/s. Canara Bank …Respondent/s
Mr. Ankur Kumar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Digambar Gaikwad along with Mr. Mobin Sayyed i/b M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate, submitted that they are representing Respondent Bank and undertakes to file Vakalatnama on or before the next date of hearing.
-: Order dated : 08/04/2022 :-
The impugned order is dated 10.01.2022 and Appeal has been filed only on 04.04.2022 causing delay of 52 in filing Appeal according to the Registry.
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
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 Applicants submitted that because of the pandemic situation Appeal could not be filed within stipulated time.
Arguments of Ld. Counsel for Appellants and Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank were heard.
In view of the above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and reasons for delay stated in application for condonation of delay and accompanying Affidavit, I am of the view that the delay has to be condoned. Hence I.A. No.64/2022 is allowed and delay of 52 days in filing Appeal on Diary No.160/2022 is condoned.
Appeal on Diary No.160/2022 will be taken up for hearing after removing objections raised by the office.
Post on 12.04.2022 before Registrar for compliance.
dpj/mks-4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay in filing appeal can be viewed in light of Supreme Court orders excluding pandemic periods from the computation of limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020Relied on¶10
M.A. No. 21/2022 in M.A. No. 665/2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Prabhu Construction & Another
Canara Bank
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
