The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, citing a liberal approach to substantial justice.
I.A. No. 441 of 2022 allowed; delay in filing appeal condoned.
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 DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Dy. No. 659 of 2022
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
03.08.2023
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr ... Appellants -VsM/s Karshma Enterprises & ors ... Respondent
Mr. Ritobnan Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel, Mr. Prasun Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Mr. Nimesh Mishra, Learned Counsel Mr. D. Basu Roy Learned Counsel for the Respondent
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 441 of 2022 Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal. Impugned order was passed on 29.07.2022 while the Appeal was filed on 28.11.2022.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. Certified copy was applied on 29.07.2022 while the certified copy was prepared on 16.09.2022. Thereafter, Appeal was preferred. It is submitted that certified copy of the order was handed over to the Learned Advocate on record on 28.10.2022. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that delay is not intentional. Rather, it was procedural as sanctions had to be obtained from the competent authority.
2
Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the prayer and submits that no sufficient cause is shown. The certified copy was applied on 29th July, 2022 which was prepared on 16.09.2022 and was delivered on 28.10.2022. In Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27901/2015 Raheem Shah & Anr Vs. Govind Singh & Ors , Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the law as has been held in the case of collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 wherein it was held:
“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1.Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3.” Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
3
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal.
Accordingly, I found the ground to be sufficient. I.A No. 441 of 2022 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. Order dated 30th June, 2023 be complied within a week.
Let the Appeal be registered as regular appeal by providing a regular appeal number. Opposition may be filed within three weeks with copy to the Appellant who may file the rejoinder within a week thereafter.
List on 4th October, 2023 for hearing of Appeal.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 3rd August, 2023 4/tp
1 issue framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raheem Shah & Anr Vs. Govind Singh & OrsReferred¶11
Civil Appeal No. 4628 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 27901/2015 Raheem Shah & Anr Vs. Govind Singh & Ors
collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & OrsReferred¶11
collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr
M/s Karshma Enterprises & ors
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
