Mahesh Damu Khare v. Bank of Baroda and others
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of a 1993-day delay in filing an appeal against a recovery order. The Court held the delay was unreasonable and unjustified, rejecting arguments based on legal misconduct and pandemic lockdown benefits.
What did the court decide?
The application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the underlying appeal stands dismissed.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 187/2022 (CoD)
In
Appeal on Diary No. 236/2022
Between
Mahesh Damu Khare … Appellant/s V/s.
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
…Respondent/s
Mr Pradyuman D. Sharma, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr Anant B. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 07/12/2022:-
This is an application filed under section 20 (3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDB Act’ for short) for condoning the delay of 1993 days in filing the appeal mentioned above challenging the judgment and order dated 04/10/2016 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 402/2011 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (‘DRT’ for short).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 1993 days in filing the appeal under section 20 of the RDB Act is sufficient cause to be condoned.
Whether the Appellant could take refuge under the Supreme Court order in Suo moto Writ Petition No. 3/2020 regarding pandemic exclusion.
Whether professional negligence of counsel constitutes a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mahesh Damu Khare
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
Ashok Menon
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · December
- CNR
- 271090002362022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court