Allowed

H Anuradha v. Canara bank

DRAT27 Feb 2023REGULAR APPEAL/109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act. The court relied on the Limitation Act for condonation and noted the pendency of the matter due to a Supreme Court order requiring the Tribunal to deal with the appeal.

What did the court decide?

I.A. 121 of 2021 is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 as costs to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

H Anuradha versus Canara bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Diary No. 152 of 2021

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

27.02.2023

¶5

Dr. H. Anuradha & 2 Others

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

-VsCanara Bank & 11 Others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellants

¶9

Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶10

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶11

I.A. 121 of 2021

¶12

In this application Appellants have prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶13

Impugned order was passed on 23^rd April, 2019 thereafter a writ petition, being W.P. No. 13184 of 2019, was filed before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana which was decided on 9^th October, 2020. Appeal was filed on 24^th February, 2021.

¶14

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that benefit, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, may be granted for condoning the delay in filing the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that delay in filing the writ petition on 28^th June, 2019 was not intentional. There is a delay of 34 days.

¶15

Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Misc. Appeal No. 665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No. 3 of

¶16

¶17

2020 dated 23^rd September, 2021, regarding Covid-19 pandemic and further Keeping in view that the ground taken by the Appellants that the delay was not intentional, I find the ground sufficient for condoning the delay.

¶18

Accordingly, I.A. 121 of 2021 is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees five thousand) only as costs to be deposited in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.

¶19

At this stage Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Asset And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the judgment and order passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal in SARFAESI Application No. 373 of 2017 dated 23^rd April, 2019. It is further submitted that against the judgment of the DRT a Writ Petition, being No. 13184 of 2019 was filed by the Appellants which was dismissed on 9^th October, 2020 . It is further submitted that one of the borrowers, namely, H. Sanjay Kumar, who was Opposite Party No. 12 in the second S.A. 373 of 2017, preferred a Writ Petition, being No. 1291 of 2021, before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana which was decided by a Division Bench on 27^th April, 2022. The writ petition was dismissed not only on the point of alternative remedy but on merits also.

¶20

Against the judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court Appellants preferred an SLP being No. 14541 of 2022

¶21

¶22

before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was decided on 12^th September, 2022 which reads as under :

¶23

“The petitioners have instituted a statutory appeal under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Asset And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners were relegated to the above remedy by an order of the High Court dated 9 October 2020 in an earlier writ petition. In the meantime, the Court is informed, a writ petition was instituted by the thirteenth respondent (Sanjay Kumar) before the High Court.

¶24

2. Since the petitioners have already been relegated to the remedy under the 2002 Act, there is no warrant for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution in the present proceedings. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

3. However, it is clarified that the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall deal with the appeal which has been filed by the petitioners in accordance with law and shall not be bound by the observations contained in the impugned order.

¶26

4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.”

¶27

In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this

¶28

appeal is ripe for hearing.

¶29

Learned Counsel for Respondent prays for and is granted time to seek instruction regarding the debt due as on date.

¶30

List on 16^th March, 2023 for I.A. 120 of 2021.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson