Dismissed

M s Peri Educational and Charitable Trust Mr. K.Saravanan Periyasamy v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT20 Jun 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered applications to condone a 104-day delay in filing appeals against DRT orders. The Tribunal rejected the petitioners' reliance on a Supreme Court order extending limits, noting the educational institution was functioning during the period, and dismissed the applications for insufficient reasons.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of applications IA-338/2022 & IA-339/2022 to condone delay and consequent rejection of appeals AIR (SA) 86/2022 & 87/2022.

M s Peri Educational and Charitable Trust Mr. K.Saravanan… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 20^th of June, 2023

¶4

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

¶5

IA-338/2022 & IA-339/2022

¶6

¶7

AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶8

[SA 161/2020 and SA 175/2019 on the file of DRT- II, Chennai)

¶9

Between

¶10

M/s. Peri Educational and Charitable Trust, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. K. Saravanan Periasamy, New No.4, 45^th Street, 9^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.

¶11

……Petitioner/Appellant in both AIR (SA) 86/2022 & AIR (SA) 87/2022

¶12

And

¶13

The Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, Irungattukottai Branch, Large Advances Branch, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram- 602 117.

¶14

Respondent in both AIR (SA) 86/2022 & AIR (SA) 87/2022

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. L. Murali Krishnan and Ms. S. Jecintha For Respondent : Mr. Y. T. Aravind Gosh

¶16

¶17

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶18

COMMON ORDER

¶19

These two Applications are filed to condone delay of 104 days in preferring Appeals against Orders dated 30.11.2021 of DRT-II, Chennai.

¶20

Brief facts leading to these Applications are as follows:-

¶21

Petitioner/Appellant herein filed SA 175/2019

¶22

challenging Possession Notice dated 04.04.2019 and also filed SA 161/2020 challenging Sale Notice dated 25.08.2020. Both the Applications are disposed of on 30.11.2021, by dismissing them. Aggrieved by said Orders, Appeal AIR (SA) 86/2022 is filed challenging Order in SA 161/2020 and Appeal AIR (SA) 87/2022 is filed challenging Order in SA 175/2019. As both the Appeals are not filed in time, these

¶23

two Applications are filed to condone delay of 104 days in preferring said Appeals.

¶24

¶25

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶26

According to the Affidavits filed in support of

¶27

Applications, Appeals are filed on 13.04.2022 with E-DRT Order, and thereafter applied for certified copy on 04.05.2022, which has been ready on 17.05.2022 and the same is filed. It is further stated that Petitioner/Appellant has got benefit of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in Suo Motu

¶28

Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 , through which Hon’ble Apex Court extended limitation upto 30.06.2022, therefore, delay has to be condoned.

¶29

Bank filed Counter disputing the Affidavit averments of Petitioner/Appellant. According to Counter Affidavit, days of delay are not properly calculated and no proper reasons are given for said delay. It is stated, there is serious negligence and laxity on the part of Petitioner/Appellant in preferring

¶30

the Appeals. It is also stated that SAs are heard through Virtual Hearing in the presence of Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant and orders were pronounced on 30.11.2021. It is further stated, the judgement of Hon’ble

¶31

¶32

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶33

Apex Court will not come to aid of Petitioner/Appellant, and Applications are liable to be dismissed.

¶34

Both sides Advocate submitted their arguments supporting the pleadings of their respective parties.

¶35

Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant submitted, in view of Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in extending limitation, Appeals are in time, and Petitioner/Appellant as abundant caution, filed these delay Applications. On the other hand, Advocate for Respondent submitted that Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 , will not come to aid of Petitioner/Appellant as there was no lockdown in Tamilnadu, at the relevant point of time. When such an argument is advanced, Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant was asked to inform whether Petitioner’s Educational Institution was functioning or closed, during the relevant point of time, to which, Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant replied that Petitioner’s Educational

¶36

¶37

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶38

Institution was not closed and it was opened and functioning, during the relevant point of time.

¶39

When Petitioner/Appellant is taking aid of limitation

¶40

extended during pandemic situation, it is for Petitioner/Appellant to show that it was not in a position to file these Appeals in time, because of pandemic situation, but the answer of Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant is the

¶41

other way. When Petitioner’s Educational Institution was functioning during relevant point of time, it is the bounden duty of Petitioner/Appellant to explain delay with proper and convincing reasons.

¶42

As rightly pointed out by Advocate for Respondent Bank, days of delay is not properly calculated because as per the submissions of Advocate for Respondent Bank, on the same day, DRT uploaded the Orders and free copies were made available through E-DRT.

¶43

¶44

IA-338/2022 in AIR (SA) - 86/2022 & IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) - 87/2022

¶45

Considering these aspects, I am of the view that Petitioner/Appellant has not shown sufficient reasons for delay of 104 days, therefore, Applications are liable to be dismissed.

¶46

In the result, both Applications IA-338/2022 in AIR

¶47

(SA) 86/2022 and IA-339/2022 in AIR (SA) 87/2022 are

¶48

dismissed. Consequently, Appeals AIR (SA) 86/2022 and

¶49

AIR (SA) 87/2022 are rejected. No order as to costs. All

¶50

other Applications, if any, stand closed.

¶51

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 20^th of June, 2023]

¶52

CHAIRPERSON

¶53

M s Peri Educational and Charitable Trust Mr. K.Saravanan Periyasamy v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M s Peri Educational and Charitable Trust Mr. K.Saravanan Periyasamy v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dbs Bank versus Shankaranaryan Jewellers

Messers Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus City Union Bank Limited

Ms Vimalkumar Textiles versus Union Bank of India

Indian overseas Bank versus v.Jayapaul & Ors.

M s Peri Educational and Charitable Trust Mr. Saravanan Periyasamy versus Indian Overseas Bank

A C Velmurugan versus City Union Bank Limited