Allowed

Bank of India v. Prashant S Ruia and Anr.

DRAT6 Sept 2023IA/507/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal condoned a 151-day delay by Bank of India in filing an appeal challenging a Debts Recovery Tribunal order, accepting the explanation that the bank was not a party to the lead bank's appeal. The appeal was allowed subject to payment of ₹10,000 as costs.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed subject to payment of ₹10,000. Appeal to be filed within one week.

Bank of India versus Prashant S Ruia and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 507/2022 (CoD)

¶3

¶4

Appeal on Diary No. 885/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

Bank of India … Appellant/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Prashant S Ruia & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr. Ravindranath Menon, along with Brian C, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Rajesh Nagory along with Mr. Mihir Beradia, i/b M/s. VM Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶11

-: Order dated: 06/09/2023:-

¶12

This is an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal challenging the order dated 11.03.2022 in I.A. No. 106/2022 in O.A. No. 650/2018 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Ahmadabad (D.R.T). Whereby the I.A. filed by the 1^st Respondent was allowed and it was observed that since no debt is found due and recoverable by the Applicant Bank from the Defendant the O.A. was dismissed.

¶13

The O.A. was filed by a consortium of banks and financial institutions for the realization of debt due from the defendants. The impugned order was already challenged by the lead bank the State Bank of India by filing an appeal before this Tribunal and other appeals were also filed challenging similar orders in connected matters.

¶14

However, the Appellant Bank of India though part of the consortium, and also an Applicant in the O.A. was not made a party

¶15

¶16

in the appeal filed by the State Bank of India. Hence, the Appellant Bank thought that it would be only appropriate for them to challenge the impugned order by filing a separate appeal. During the process of understanding that the appeal challenging the impugned order was filed by the SBI alone and that the Appellant was not made a party to that appeal, there occurred a delay of 151 days and therefore, the Appellants filed this application for condonation of delay stating that there was no laches or lack of bonafides on the part of the Appellant who has delayed filing of the appeal.

¶17

Respondent No. 1 has appeared and vehemently opposes the application by stating that sufficient reasons are not stated to condone the delay of 151 days. The allegations made regarding how the Appellant came to know about the filing of the appeal by the SBI and thereby being excluded from it are not sufficiently detailed. Under the circumstances, it is stated that the delay cannot be condoned.

¶18

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his argument. The 1^st decision Reserve Bank of India Vs Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors MANU/SC/0329/2021 for the purpose of contending that in case of not challenging the appeal, despite being a consortium with the SBI they may not stand to benefit it by allowing of the appeal filed by the SBI. The decision of N Balakrishnan vs. M Krishnamurthy MANU/SC/ 0573/1998 is relied upon to support the view that condonation of delay has to be allowed because the primary function

¶19

¶20

of the court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice.

¶21

It is also contended that the length of delay does not matter, the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. It is also in that decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in every case of delay, there shall be some lapse on the part of the Applicant concerned but that can be compensated by the payment of cost.

¶22

After having heard both sides and have been gone through the documents on record that are available I find that the very same judgment has been challenged by the SBI which is the 1^st Applicant in the O.A. and therefore, there could not have been any mala fidies on the part of the Appellant for not filing an appeal. No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the 1^st Respondent by one more appeal arising from the very same order which has been challenged.

¶23

However, the explanation offered for the delay of 151 days does not appear to be very satisfactory and that has to be compensated by the payment of cost. Hence, the application is allowed subject to payment of cost ₹ 10,000/- to the DRT Bar Association for the purchase of books and periodic within a period of one week.

¶24

Post on 14.09.2023 for reporting compliance before the Registrar.

¶25

rm-14

¶26

Bank of India v. Prashant S Ruia and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Prashant S Ruia 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Ashok Ravjibhai Desai

M/S Jagyasu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

M/S Jagyasu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Shirish Lalaso Pawar versus the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Tauschen Traidlink Pavt Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Asrec (India) Ltd. versus M/s. Aksitex World Wide (Impex) Ltd. and Ors.