Allowed

Jasmin Metal and Ors. v. Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

DRAT26 Jul 2022MISC APPLICATION/892/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered an application for condonation of delay and restoration of a dismissed appeal. While acknowledging lapses in vigilance, the Chairperson condoned the 112-day delay but imposed a condition of payment of costs due to the age of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 112 days and restoration of Appeal No. 144/2008 and miscellaneous applications, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- within two weeks.

Jasmin Metal and Ors. versus Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 893/2014 (CoD)

¶3

¶4

M.A No. 892/2014 (Restoration) In

¶5

(Appeal No. 144/2008 along with M.A. No. 668/2008, 669/2008 & 670/2008 disposed of)

¶6

Between

¶7

Jasmin Metals & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶8

ICICI Bank Ltd & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr. Yogesh K. Deshpande, Advocate for Appellants.

¶10

Mr. Gargi Bhagwat, M/s. Divekar Bhagwat & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶11

-: Order dated: 26/07/2022:-

¶12

The Applicants/Appellants I.A. No. 893/2014 for condonation of delay in filing M.A No. 892/2014 for restoration are the Appellants in Appeal No. 144/2008 which was filed along with three applications i.e. M.A. No. 668/2008 for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal, M.A. No. 669/2008 for a stay of the impugned order and M.A. No. 670/2008 for waiver of pre-deposit. All these applications were pending consideration before this Tribunal. The Appellants and their counsel remained absent on three dates i.e. on 05.05.2014, 23.05.2014, and ultimately also on 10.07.2014, and in consequence, to that, the Appeal and all the pending Miscellaneous Applications were dismissed on 10.07.2014.

¶13

while the Appeal was pending at Lodging No. 824/2005 it

¶14

¶15

happened to be dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2006 and the Appellant filed M.A. No. 941/2006 for getting that Appeal restored to file and Vide order dated 03.07.2008, it was restored to file subject to a condition on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Respondent Bank and thereafter, the Appeal was numbered as No. 144/2008. Appellant had filed the aforesaid M.A. Nos. 668, 669 and 670/2008 in the Appeal and all those applications together with the Appeal were dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 10.07.2014.

¶16

Now, the Appellant/Applicant has come up by filing I.A. No. 893/2014 and M.A. No. 892/2014 to get the Appeal No. 144/2008 along with the other M.As. restored to the file after condoning the delay.

¶17

The reasons stated are that the matter had pending consideration for a long time during the Christmas vacation of 2013 thereafter there was no specific posting and the matter was taken only in the month of May 2014 and the Appellant did not know about such a posting on three days which were referred to earlier and as a result of which the Appeal happened to be dismissed. Soon thereafter, the Appellants filed an application for restoration. But there was a delay of 112 days in filing the application restoration, therefore, Appellants filed I.A. No. 893/2014 seeking condonation of delay.

¶18

The restoration application M.A. No. 892/2014 and I.A. No. 893/2014 for the condition of delay, were both vehemently opposed by the Respondent Bank on the ground that the grounds stated in these applications are totally insufficient and, therefore, the delay of 112 days cannot be condoned.

¶19

¶20

After going through the submissions made by both sides, I find that the Appellant did show some lack of vigilance while proceeding with the matter, but at the same time, the learned counsel had taken up the blame on the advocates who were conducting the matter that the dates were not properly noticed and for that reason he seeks the delay to be condoned. I find that it is always desirable to dispose of matters on their merit and, therefore, the delay of 112 days in filing the restoration application is condoned but being an old matter i.e. of 2008, it cannot be condoned without any condition and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is allowed along with an application for restoration of appeal, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) payable to the Respondent Bank within a period of two weeks.

¶21

Post on 21.09.2022 for compliance.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

dpj-6

¶24

Jasmin Metal and Ors. v. Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmin Metal and Ors. v. Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dena Bank versus M/s. Shrinathji Spintex P. Ltd. & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Shreenathji Spintes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

P N Naidu versus Punjab National Bank

Idbi Bank Limited versus Ms Shree Basweshwar Agro Processors

Jasmin Metal and Ors. versus Icici Bank Ltd. and Anr.

M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. versus Indira Gandhi Bharatiya Mahila Vikas Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited