Dismissed

R Ganesh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRAT6 Oct 2023MISC APPEAL/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dispute regarding condonation of delay for a restoration application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the lower Tribunal's order. The Tribunal found the Appellant's reasons for delay (medical hospitalization and COVID-19 travel restrictions) unconvincing due to lack of supporting documentary evidence and merits in the main case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal MA (SA) 32/2022 is dismissed with costs and pending IAs are closed.

R Ganesh versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 6^th of October, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶6

(MA No.8/2022 in SA 99/2021 on the file of DRT – I, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

R. Ganesh, S/o Mr. Ranganathan, No.6, Kanarkaikara Street, Arcot, Vellore – 632 503. Tamil Nadu.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

M/s. Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, No.769, Spencer Plaza, 4^th Floor, Phase-2, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

….. Respondent

¶13

Counsel for Appellant : M/s. C. Ramaiah Counsel for Respondent : M/s. T.K.M. Saikrishnan

¶14

¶15

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Appeal is against Order dated 16.06.2022 in

¶18

MA 8/2022 in SA 99/2021 of DRT-I, Chennai.

¶19

Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

¶20

Appellant herein filed SA 99/2021 challenging the measures taken under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, and that Application is dismissed on 13.12.2021 for non prosecution. Appellant herein filed Application for restoration of said SA with delay condonation Application (MA 8/2022) to condone delay of 44 days, and Tribunal below, on a consideration of contentions and rival contentions of both parties, and also considering the merits of main SA, dismissed said MA through Order dated 16.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is preferred.

¶21

¶22

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶23

Heard both sides.

¶24

Advocate for Appellant submitted that delay of 44 days was due to reasons stated in the Affidavit filed in support of Application, but, Tribunal below failed to consider the same. He submitted, Appellant got fair chances of success in main SA, and an opportunity may be given to Appellant. He further submitted that restoration Application could not be filed, due to COVID-19, considering these reasons, Appeal may be allowed.

¶25

On the other hand, Advocate for Respondent submitted that Order of Tribunal below is a well reasoned Order, which also considered merits in the main case, therefore, there is no question of giving any chance. He further submitted, the reasons stated in the Application for condonation of delay are not convincing, and the Appeal is liable to dismissed.

¶26

¶27

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶28

I have perused material papers including impugned Order dated 16.06.2022.

¶29

According to Advocate for Appellant, the reasons for delay are mentioned in the Affidavit filed in support of Petition. As seen from said Affidavit, Appellant undergone medical treatment and admitted to hospital as inpatient on 21.10.2021 and discharged on 19.11.2021. According to his Affidavit, he is still taking medical treatment and regularly attending medical check-up once in 15 days, and Doctors advised him to take bed rest for a period of one month, and thus, he was bedridden for many days, and therefore, he could not contact his Counsel regularly, and that was the reason for his absence on 13.12.2021. He further stated, on 29.01.2022, he came to know about dismissal Order dated 13.12.2021, and when he contacted his Advocate, he was advised to file restoration Petition. He stated, Appellant changed his Advocate, collected case papers from his previous Advocate, but, due to sudden spread of COVID – 19,

¶30

¶31

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶32

he could not come to Chennai from Vellore, and for these reasons, the delay occurred.

¶33

According to Appellant, he was hospitalized and underwent surgery. Appellant filed those medical records along with Memorandum of Appeal. On verification of the same, it appears that, Appellant was admitted to hospital on 19.11.2021 and discharged on 21.11.2021, but the dismissal Order is on 13.12.2021. According to Appellant, as he was advised bed rest for one month, he could not give instructions for the hearing on 13.12.2021. But, as seen from medical record, there is no such advice from Doctor to take bed rest for one month. On the contrary, the discharge advice is to take some tablets and attend for review after five days. So, the contention that he was bedridden and advised bed rest, is not supported by any documents. On the contrary, the medical record discloses different discharge advice.

¶34

¶35

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶36

Other contention of the Appellant is, due to sudden spread of COVID-19, he was not able to move from Vellore to Chennai, for the purpose of engaging a new Counsel. It is the specific case of Appellant that he came to know the dismissal Order only on 29.01.2022, and thereafter, he contacted his Advocate and obtained change of Vakalat and collected case papers. It is not known on what date he made request to his previous Advocate and collected no objection and case papers from him. Affidavit filed in support of Petition was sworn in February, 2022, but the date of sworn-in of Affidavit is not mentioned. The alleged COVID19 pleaded is not supported by material evidence. According to Advocate for Respondent, during February, 2022, there is no such situation in Tamilnadu as contended by Appellant. So, both these reasons are not convincing and Tribunal below rightly discarded them.

¶37

As rightly pointed out by Advocate for Respondent, Tribunal below also considered the merits of main case

¶38

¶39

MA (SA) 32/2022

¶40

prima facie , and held that, there are no merits in favour of Appellant. So, the request of Advocate for Appellant to give an opportunity is not well founded.

¶41

On a scrutiny of entire material, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal below is right in dismissing the Application and there are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned Order of DRT-I, Chennai, and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

In the result ; Appeal MA (SA) 32/2022 is dismissed

¶43

with costs. All the pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶44

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 6^th of October, 2023]

¶45

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON

¶46

R Ganesh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Ganesh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank versus Mrs K Valarmathi

R Subramanian versus Natwet Market Pic and Ors.

Sri v.Ramanujam versus Pragathi Co. Operative Bank Limited

Mrs.G.Kavitha versus City Union Bank Limited

Palaniyammal versus Bank of India

J Murali Manohar versus Export Import Bank of India