Dismissed

Ms Patneswar Rice Mill v. State Bank of India

DRAT22 Aug 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata dismissed an interim application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for a delay of 1210 days in filing an appeal, characterizing the applicant as a negligent litigant who engaged in luxurious litigation and failed to show sufficient cause for the excessive delay, including reliance on the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The interim application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed; consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.

Ms Patneswar Rice Mill versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appl. Dy No. 27 of 2022

¶4

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶5

22.08.2023

¶6

M/s. Patneswari Rice Mill

¶7

… Appellant Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. Counsel. Mr. Abir Mondal, ld. Counsel. For Respondent : Mr. Soudip Pal Chowdhury, ld. Counsel. Ms. S. Sikdar, ld. Counsel.

¶10

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶11

I.A. 15 of 2023 is filed by the appellant u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1210 days in preferring the appeal against the judgement and order dated 16.11.2018. The appeal was filed on 11.03.2022. Respondent bank has filed opposition. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 orally opposes the prayer.

¶12

Impugned order was passed by learned DRT on 16.11.2018 while appeal was filed on 11.03.2022. In the application for condonation of delay it is stated that appellant Parsuram Meher, who is proprietor of M/s. Patneswari Rice Mill, filed the S.A. 94 of 2017 pursuant to leave granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order 17.07.2017 in the Writ Petition No. 11098(C) of 2017. S.A. was decided on 16.11.2018. As per pleading appellant came to know about this order on 23.11.2019 from his learned advocate. Thereafter he applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 25.11.2019 and certified copy was obtained on 20.12.2019. Again appellant visited Cuttack and met his counsel in February, 2022. Thereafter, he again applied for certified copy of the impugned order on 27.02.2022 and instant appeal was filed on 11.03.2022.

¶13

As would appear from the pleading of the condonation of delay application that appellant is either negligent litigant or over

¶14

¶15

cautious to get over the hurdle of limitation, who is litigating a luxurious litigation.

¶16

Admittedly, S.A. was filed by him in the year 2017. Thereafter the S.A. was dismissed 16.11.2018. But appellant did not contact his counsel to know about the fate of the S.A. He claimed that he came to know about dismissal of the S.A. on 23.11.2019. There is no disclosure as to how he came to know on 23.11.2019. Thereafter he applied for certified copy and copy was handed over on 20.12.2019. Appellant kept mum for about two years and one fine morning he woke up and again applied for certified copy which was handed over to him on 11.03.2022 and then appeal was preferred.

¶17

An effort was made to take advantage of the Covid pandemic. In para 11 appellant referred the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu case of 03 of 2020. As far as Suo Motu case No. 3 of 2020 is concerned appellant cannot take advantage of the same. Impugned order was passed on 16.11.2018 much before the pandemic. Thereafter appellant did not make any effort to obtain certified copy of the impugned order and file the appeal.

¶18

No doubt appellant has a right to prefer an appeal against the impugned order, but that right is not sacrosanct, it has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in the Act and if there is delay appellant has to show sufficient cause for the same and it has to be explained in the application. Appellant did not show sufficient reason for the delay rather he is litigating a luxurious litigation which could not be permitted under law. There is delay of 1210 days in filing the appeal which could not be sufficiently explained. Accordingly, I am of the view that this inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. I.A. 15 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

¶21

I.A. 15 of 2023 for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed as time barred. No order as to costs.

¶22

File be consigned to record room.

¶23

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶24

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶25

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22^nd day of August, 2023.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶27

Dated : 22.08.2023 02 /pkb

¶28

Ms Patneswar Rice Mill v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Patneswar Rice Mill v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Marudhar Tracon P Ltd. versus India Sme Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Smt S Uma Rani and Ors. versus Chennuri Muralidhar Rao

Union of India versus Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Narayan Bhai Patel versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Ms Goutham Sai Granites Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Hdfc Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Anuj Textiles Private Limited