Allowed

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi v. Bank of India

DRAT17 Jun 2022MISC APPEAL/93/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant filed an appeal challenging an order from D.R.T.-I, Ahmedabad, noting a 1140-day delay. Relying on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the Appellant sought to exclude the pandemic period from limitation calculations. The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay application and directed the Registry to place the appeal on record.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay is allowed. Registry directed to take the Appeal on record.

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi versus Bank of India — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No.77/2021

¶3

¶4

Appeal on Diary No. 278/2021

¶5

Between

¶6

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi … Appellant/s V/s.

¶7

Bank of India & 13 Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Mr. Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

-: Order dated : 17/06/2022 :-

¶10

Respondents have been served but none appeared and hence Respondents are set ex-parte in I.A. which is an application for condonation of delay.

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing the Appellant.

¶12

The impugned order dated 22.02.20218 of the D.R.T.-I, Ahmedabad, in I.A. No. 339/2018 in O.A. No. 392/2017 is challenged in this Appeal at Diary No. 278/2021 and there is a delay of 1140 days noticed by the Registry. In the application and the accompanying affidavit, the reasons for delay is that after disposal of the I.A. No. 339/2018 in O.A. No. 394/2017, the Appellant allegedly approached the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by filing R/Special Civil Application No. 5671/2018 and he also obtained stay of the operation of the said order and thereafter the Civil Application before the Hon’ble High Court continued and was ultimately disposed of on 16.03.2021 directing the Appellant to approach this Appellate Tribunal. However, the protection was extended for a further period of six weeks and

¶13

thereafter the Appellant approached this Tribunal and filed this Appeal along with the application for condonation of delay.

¶14

The Appellant states that the period in which he was bonafide litigating before the Hon’ble High Court needs to be excluded, and thereafter, he seeks benefit of 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 Appellant submitted that because of the pandemic situation the Appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time.

¶15

Under the circumstances, the Appellant would be entitled to get the entire period of delay condoned.

¶16

On going through the records, the application for condonation of delay and the accompanying Affidavit, I find that the delay has been properly explained and hence the application for condonation of delay stands allowed.

¶17

The Registry is directed to take the Appeal on record, if there are no defects to be cured.

¶18

Post on 13.07.2022 before the Registrar for compliance.

¶19

Sd/Chairperson

¶20

dpj-2

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Shree Ginger Enterprises

Narendra Thakker versus Canara Bank Limited

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Mr. Lalit Chimanlal Rao

Rajesh Narottamdas Sanghavi versus Bank of India

Dhirajlal and Company versus Union Bank of India and Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sandeep D. Gawali and Ors.