Partly allowed

Mr. Anant Subrya Bhat & 2 Ors. v. Phonex Arc Private Limited & 5 Ors.

DRAT24 May 2023IA/261/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 260-day delay in restoring an appeal dismissed for default, directing the appellant to pay costs of ₹20,000 to the DRT Bar Association and the respondent financial institution within one week.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 260-day delay for restoration of appeal allowed subject to payment of costs of ₹20,000 within one week.

Mr. Anant Subrya Bhat & 2 Ors. versus Phonex Arc Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 261/2023 (CoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 605/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Anant Subrya Bhat & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Dr. Vinod Joshi along with Mr. Shivani Chandolkar, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Ms. Nilima C. Sarvagod, i/b Mr. Onkar Warange, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 & 3

¶8

Appeal No. 22/2108 is filed against the dismissal of the S.A. filed by the Appellants before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) when the Appeal was taken up for hearing on 21.04.2022, there was no representation for the Appellants and parties were directed to get ready by the next date of hearing. On 04.07.2022 when the Appeal was taken up, the Appellants were again not present and were neither represented. Consequently, the Appeal was dismissed for default.

¶9

The Appellants had also challenged the order u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short) by filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and obtaining an interlocutory order in their favour against

¶10

¶11

taking over the possession of the property.

¶12

The Appellants have filed this application for condonation 260 days delay together with a restoration application to restore the appeal dismissed for default. The explanation given for the delay is that the Appellants were not aware of the dismissal because the counsel who was earlier appearing for the parties had been appointed as a member of CAT and therefore, the Appellants did not get information about the status of the Appeal. In between, there was also the pandemic which resulted prevented their counsel from regularly appearing before this Tribunal.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Financial Institution has vehemently opposed the application stating that the reason stated for condoning the delay is not acceptable. It is also pointed out that the Appellants had already approached the Hon’ble High Court by way of a Writ Petition challenging the Sarfaesi measures taking u/s 14 and that an interim order was obtained in their favour. Despite having obtained the interim order in their favour, the Appellants were not getting ready for the hearing of the Appeal, which indicates that the intention of the Appellants was only the protract the matter and to see that the Appeal is not disposed of. 5. In the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 12.04.2023 in Writ Petition filed by the Appellants time was granted to the petitioner/Appellants to make an application for restoration of the Appeal and the ad-interim order was ordered to continue till the 03.05.2023. The writ stands posted to 16.06.2023.

¶14

¶15

Considering the entire fact and circumstance of this case, I find that there has been some laches on the part of the Appellants in prosecuting the Appeal. However, the said laches can be rectified by way of direction to pay cost. And therefore, the application for condonation of delay 260 days is allowed on payment of the cost of ₹ 10,000/- to the D.R.T., Bar Association for purchasing books and periodicals and ₹ 10,000/- to the 1^st Respondent Financial Institution within a period of one week. Failing which, the application shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Tribunal. Post on 01.06.2023 before the Registrar for reporting compliance.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

psa-02

¶18

Mr. Anant Subrya Bhat & 2 Ors. v. Phonex Arc Private Limited & 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anant Subrya Bhat & 2 Ors. v. Phonex Arc Private Limited & 5 Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Sridhaar Sriram Iyenger and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Sterlite Industries India Limited and Ors.

M/S Abhinav Furniture versus Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Shri Umesh Shankarlal Singhal versus Bank of Maharashtra

Saraswat Co-Operative Bank Ltd. versus Central Bank of India and Ors.

asset reconstruction company india limited versus Mr. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav