Mrs. Usharani v. Bank of India

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

IA 351/2022 in A.IR:217/2022

Mrs.Usharani & Anr V/S A.O.,Bank Of India

18/07/2023

This Application is filed under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking condonation of delay of seven (7) days in preferring the Appeal against Order dated 30.03.2022 in SA 221/2019 of DRT-III, Chennai.

Other side has filed Counter opposing Application.

Heard both sides.

Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the reason for delay is explained in para 16 of Affidavit. It may be relevant and necessary to examine said para 16, which is extracted as under:-

“…….. 16. The order copy was received by me on 23/5/2022. Since my husband, who is the Proprietor of the Second Appellant, was travelling and since we are based at Trichy, we were finding it difficult to coordinate with the Counsel who are having their office at Chennai. On account of the above said bonafide reasons there has been a delay of 7 days and the Appellants would be greatly prejudiced if the said delay is not condoned. ………………………”

According to above statement, Petitioner No.2 is proprietor of M/s. Apex Communications, and as he was in travel, it was found difficult to co-ordinate with Counsel, who are having their Office at Chennai. After reading of this, a question is put to Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants whether said reason is recognized ground for condonation of delay, because the other Petitioner No.2, is available, and even one party can file the Appeal. It is also put to Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants, whether any documents supporting said travel is filed, to which, he replied that in spite of best efforts, they could not locate the documents. But, I am not convinced with answer, because, nowadays, even for bus travel, there will be online information, and one can get the passenger’s list of a particular date. Further, the Affidavit is very vague about date on which 2^nd Petitioner was in travel, for how many days he was in travel and places of travel.