The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the chamber appeal. The Tribunal held that the Registrar was correct in declining registration because the appellant failed to remove minor objections within the final extended deadline (08.08.2023), despite multiple opportunities.
The Chamber Appeal No. 15/2023 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
CHAMBER APPEAL NO. 15/2023 (AIR 495/2023)
NkMohta And Anr Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd. &Ors
20/11/2023
This Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 08.08.2023 passed by Registrar in AIR 495/2023, declining to register the Appeal in terms of Rule 6 (4) of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the Rules, 1994).
Office raised 16 Objections on 29.05.2023, and for compliance, time is granted till 09.06.2023. On 12.06.2023, though Advocate for Appellant was present, none of the Objections are removed, and same thing happened on 28.06.2023, and Registrar has given last and final chance, and time extended till 08.08.2023. In spite of that, no interest is evinced in removing the Office Objections, which are rightly pointed out by Advocate for Appellant of very minor in nature.
As per Sub-rule-(3) of Rule 6 of Rules, 1994, when defects noticed are formal in nature, Registrar has to allow Appellant to rectify the same in his presence, and if said defects are not formal in nature, then, time has to be granted for their rectification. When Advocate for Appellant admits that the defects pointed out are minor in nature, Appellant ought to have rectified them, then and there, in the presence of Registrar; still, Registrar granted time from 09.06.2023 to 08.08.2023, i.e. almost for 60 days; in spite of that, no interest is evinced in removing the Objections.
When it was put to Advocate for Appellant, whether she is ready to remove the Objections today, she expressed her inability and represented that the parties are at Bangalore and it is not possible to get them rectified today.
Considering the same, I am not inclined to grant any further time as Objections are not removed within the statutory period, and time granted by Registrar. I do not find any wrong in the Order of Registrar in declining the Appeal.
For the above reasons, the Chamber Appeal No. 15/2023 is dismissed.
Sd/-
Chairperson
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Chamber Appeal should be registered despite failure of the appellant to rectify objections within the granted timeframe.
Whether the Registrar acted correctly in declining the registration of the appeal due to persistent non-compliance by the appellant.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nk Mohta
Anr
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd
Ors
Chairperson
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
