Appeal filed under SARFAESI Act against an order dismissing a delay condonation application in representation. The Tribunal directed the lower court to decide the delay petition on merits within 30 days of pleadings.
Impugned order set aside; lower Tribunal directed to decide delay condonation petition on merits within 30 days.
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.
MA(SA) 22/2019
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 1st of June, 2022
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
MA (SA) 22/2019
[MA No.59/16 in MASR No.3140/16 in SASR No.3138/16 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai]
Between
S/o Mr. Nataraja Chettiyar No.15, Periay Alipuran Street, Vada Vellore Town, Vellore Taluk & District.
……Appellant
And
1
MA(SA) 22/2019
No.118, Cuddlore Chengalvarayan Street, Vellore, Vellore District.
….. Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : M/s CKM Appaji & Co. Counsel for Respondent No.1 Bank : M/s Aiyar & Dolia Counsel for R3 & R4 : M/s Ramalingam & Associates
ORDER
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI
Act) against the order dated 18.1.2018 in MA No.59/2016 in MASR No.3140/2016 in
SASR No.3138/2016 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai.
3140/2016 to condone delay of 4215 days and that appeal is returned with certain
2
MA(SA) 22/2019
office objections, viz., to file translated copies of Tamil documents. The appellant represented the returned appeal with a delay of 97 days and that application is dismissed, holding that even if the delay in representation is condoned, the next application, which is for condonation of delay is not maintainable as the Tribunal is not
empowered to deal with delay in filing application. Holding so, Tribunal below dismissed the delay in representation application.
representation is only a formal application, but the Tribunal below even considered the
main delay application and rejected it, which is not a correct approach.
auction purchasers to enjoy the fruits of the auction and the Tribunal below rightly rejected the application.
in representation is only a formal request and it is a matter between the Tribunal and
3
MA(SA) 22/2019
the party and the other side has no say in that matter and respondents are only entitled
to contest the application filed to condone delay in filing the main case.
aside with a direction to the Tribunal below to take up delay condonation petition and decide it in a time bound manner.
application and would also cooperate with the Tribunal below in deciding the delay condonation petition.
4
MA(SA) 22/2019
notice and after completion of pleadings, Tribunal below shall decide the delay application as early as possible preferably within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings.
complying this direction.
[Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 1st June, 2022]
Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to condone delay in representation was correct.
Whether the Tribunal below was directed to decide the delay condonation petition on merits in a time-bound manner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Ramesh
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
M/s K. Abdul Azeez Son & Co.
Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain
S. Gnanavadivu
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
