Allowed

Deustche Bank v. Hi Life Traders Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT24 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding sufficient cause in unforeseen circumstances including court vacation and a Bar Association boycott, despite the application for certified copy being filed after the limitation period expired.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was allowed; the appeal was registered.

Deustche Bank versus Hi Life Traders Pvt. Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 263 of 2022)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 313 of 2020 in DRT-3, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

24.08.2022 Deustche Bank … Appellant -VsHi Life Traders Private Limited … Respondent Ms. Sanjana Nandi, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶6

Mr. Nimish Mishra with Mr. Ankit Chatterjee, Learned Counsel for Respondents

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

I.A. 172 of 2022

¶9

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act wherein Appellant has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶10

2. According to the Appellant, it is stated in the accompanying affidavit, that the impugned order was passed by the Learned DRT-3, Kolkata on 26^th April, 2022 and the matter was fixed on 17^th May, 2022. Hence, it was decided that since the matter is listed on a short date, it may be argued and appeal need not be preferred. On 17^th May, 2022, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-3, Kolkata was on leave. From 21^st May, 2022 to 5^th June, 2022 since there was summer vacation in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the Bar Association of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata also adopted a resolution to avail summer vacation for three weeks and they did not appear in Court. Next date was fixed on 14^th June, 2022. Thereafter the Bar Association of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kolkata passed a resolution not to appear before Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-3, Kolkata. Hence the date was fixed on 18^th August, 2022. On 14^th June, 2022 it was opined by the Learned Counsel that since the matter is posted at a longer date, it may be challenged by filing an appeal. Accordingly, certified copy of the impugned order was applied for on 14^th June, 2022. The certified copy

¶11

¶12

was prepared on 20^th June, 2022. As the delay was beyond the control of the Appellant and it was not intentional, Appellant prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

¶13

3. Learned Counsel for Respondent opposed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is argued that no sufficient cause is shown for condonation of the delay. It is further submitted that there is a difference between the words “good cause” and “sufficient cause” and hence the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has placed reliance upon Basawaraj And Another -vs- Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81.

¶15

5. No doubt, a liberal interpretation is to be given to the words “sufficient cause” but a litigant cannot take it for granted that delay in filing of appeal should be condoned in every matter. He has to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the case of Basawaraj And Another (supra) in para 11 it is held as under:

¶16

“11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as, negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.”

¶17

6. As far as “sufficient cause” is concerned, it is further held that the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.

¶18

7. Facts of the matter shows that initially the impugned order was passed on 26^th April, 2022 which should have been challenged by filing an appeal by 26^th May, 2022 but the appeal was filed on 23^rd June, 2022. As far as exemption of time in obtaining the certified copy is concerned, application for certified copy was moved after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Certified copy of the impugned order was

¶19

¶20

applied for on 14^th June, 2022 and the copy was ready on 20^th June, 2022. But this period could not be exempted as the application for obtaining certified copy was filed after the expiry to period of limitation for filing the appeal.

¶21

8. Now it is to be seen as to whether there is any sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The impugned order shows that on 26^th April, 2022, the Respondents were allowed to file affidavit-inopposition. An interim order was also passed to the effect that till then no further action was to be taken as per order of the District Magistrate.

¶22

9. According to the Appellant since the matter was fixed on 17^th May, 2022, appeal was not filed with the pretext that it would be heard on 17^th May, 2022. On 17^th May, 2022, the Learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 14^th June, 2022. Accordingly, it was expected that the matter would be heard on 14^th June, 2022. In the meantime there was summer vacation from 21^st May, 2022 to 5^th June, 2022. Unfortunately, DRT Bar Association, Kolkata passed a resolution boycotting the Court of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-3, Kolkata, hence the matter was adjourned to 18^th August, 2022. Then the certified copy was obtained and appeal was filed. Chain of events show that Appellant is willing to contest the matter before the Learned DRT but due to unforeseen circumstances, the matter could not be taken up before the Learned DRT hence the appeal could not be filed in time.

¶23

10. I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Accordingly, application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶24

The application, being I.A. 172 of 2022, is allowed by condoning the delay.

¶25

Appeal be registered by supplying regular number.

¶26

Opposition, if any, be filed against the stay application as well as the appeal within one week with advance copy to the Appellant. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

¶27

List on 8^th September, 2022 for hearing of the stay application as well as the appeal.

¶28

¶29

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated:24^th August, 2022 01/ac

Deustche Bank v. Hi Life Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deustche Bank v. Hi Life Traders Pvt. Ltd.

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

State Bank of India versus Umang Kejiriwal and Anr.

Arya Bhandar Private Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India and Ars

M S Himshilla Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

G N Hallmarking and Refinery Pvt. Ltd. versus United Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Ms Asha Stimex Ltd. and Anr.

Arun Kumar Kar versus Uco Bank