Allowed

Mr Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

DRAT22 Nov 2022MISC APPLICATION/954/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application to condone a 68-day delay in filing an appeal challenging a DR'T order. The Court held that while the Limitation Act isn't directly applicable, the principle of Section 14 applies under Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal. The delay was attributed to the senior citizen third appellant's health issues and the demonetization crisis.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 68-day delay in filing the appeal.

Mr Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Ors. versus Bank of Baroda and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No. 954/2016 (CoD)

¶3

In Appeal No. 92/2017

¶4

Between

¶5

Mr Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Bank of Baroda & Anr.

¶7

…Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Manmohan Rao, Advocate for Appellants.

¶9

Mr A.R. Bamne, i/b M/s. A.R. Bamne & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶10

-: Order dated: 22/11/2022:-

¶11

This is an application filed by the Appellants seeking to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. The Appeal is filed challenging the orders of the D.R.T. in S.A. No. 156/2009 dated 09.09.2016 on the files of D.R.T.-III, Mumbai. The S.A. was dismissed. The Appellants state that they are neither borrowers nor guarantors nor mortgagors but they have challenged the Sarfaesi measures on the ground of having interest over the secured assets which are proceeded against, and thereby aggrieved by it. It is stated that the third Appellant is the person who was conducting the proceedings before the Tribunal and he is a senior citizen and a heart patient who has undergone angioplasty in 2001 as borne out from the documents produced. He was not able to file the appeal on time after obtaining the certified copies. It is also stated that the because of the demonetization he was further incapacitated from approaching the Tribunal, due to a paucity of funds. The Appeal is filed only on 16.12.2016 and according to the Registry, the delay is of 68 days.

¶12

¶13

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has filed a reply opposing the application for condonation with all vehemence stating that the reasons stated are not sufficient to condone the delay. It is also submitted that there is no provision for condoning the delay in the SARFAESI Act.

¶14

After having heard the counsels for both sides and precedents placed on record, I find that this provision of application of the Limitation Act condoning the delay is no longer res-integra . The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal vs. Bank of Inda & Ors (2016) 1 SCC 444 held that even though Section 5 of the Limitation Act may be impliedly inapplicable, the principle of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act can be held to be applicable even if Sec. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act does not apply. It is also held that the adoption of the provision of Sec.20 (3) of the RDB Act can be incorporated into the SARFAESI Act and hence, the delay can be condoned. I find that the reasons supplied in the application and accompanying affidavit by the Appellants regarding the delay acceptable because the third Appellant conducted the proceedings before the D.R.T. and he was incapacitated for the reasons stated in the application for filing the Appeal. Hence, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. The Appeal has already been taken on file in case there are no other defects to be cured.

¶15

The Appeal shall be posted for hearing on 10.02.2023.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

mks-08

¶18

Mr Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Dhandeep Gautam Salot & Ors. v. Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Harkishandas Mirchandani and Ors. versus the D C B Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Asrec(India) Limited versus Keshavdayal S. Jadwani & Ors.

Shri Prakash Dattatraya Apture versus Punjab National Bank

M/S. Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Anjali Vaidya

M/S. Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited