Dismissed

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

DRAT20 Dec 2023REGULAR APPEAL/131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant bank's application to condone a 174-day delay in filing an appeal. The court held that the explanation of late notification by counsel was vague and failed to show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, constituting negligence.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.

Punjab National Bank versus Divya Tatiya — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA (CAMP-HYDERABAD) Diary No.299 of 2023

¶2

(Arising out of SA No.1263/2017 of DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶4

20.12.2023

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

… Appellant Vs. Ms. Divya Tatiya & 2 Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Learned Counsel for Appellant : Mr.N.V. Pruthvi Raju For Mr. N.V. Subba Raju

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶9

IA No.202/2023 is filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay of 174 days in filing the Appeal. This Appeal is filed by the Punjab National Bank through its Authorized Officer, Sanath Nagar Branch, Deccan Chambers, Hyderabad. Affidavit is sworn by one Mr.Guru Prasad, Chief Manager, Circle SASTRA Hyderabad, Regency Plaza, Ameerpet, Hyderabad in the capacity of Authorized Officer of the Appellant Bank being one of the Principal Officers.

¶10

The impugned order was passed on 28.10.2022 whereas the Appeal was filed on 29.04.2023. The application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act is filed for condondation of delay of 174 days in filing the Appeal. The ground taken in the application at para 3 wherein it is stated that -

¶11

“3. Importantly, the Appellant Bank came to know as to the passing of the judgment and order dated October 28, 2022 on February 13, 2023. The Learned Advocate conducting the case before the Learned Tribunal informed about the same only on that day. The Bank came to know about the details of judgment only upon enquiries being made from the office of the Learned Tribunal by another empaneled Advocate”.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Appellant pressed the application on this ground by submitting that there was some miscommunication by the earlier counsel conducting the case before the learned DRT.

¶13

The settled legal position is that application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act has to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay and inherent right is not granted by the Statute in favour of the Appellant to seek condonation of delay by merely making a vague statement.

¶14

In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that sufficient cause means that the Appellant should make out a case wherein it can be inferred that the Appellant was not in a position to file an Appeal due to the reasons beyond his control.

¶15

The matter can only be considered on the basis of pleadings made by the parties. In the present case, the Authorized Officer did not care to state the sufficient details in the affidavit. It appears that the Authorized Officer acted very negligently and carelessly in filing his affidavit. Such conduct of the Authorized Officer cannot be appreciated. Rather, it needs a thorough enquiry by the competent authority as to why the Authorized Officer could

¶16

not make a specific statement as to why the Appeal could not be filed in time.

¶17

The competent authority of the Bank is required to make an in-house enquiry regarding the conduct of the Authorized Officer.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be sent to the General Manager of Punjab National Bank for appropriate action against the concerned officer under intimation to this Tribunal.

¶19

List on 22.02.2024.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶21

Dated: 20^th December, 2023

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Divya Tatiya

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

Mrs Sarosh Fatima versus Authorized Officer SBI

Rushnlo Kemp versus Vijaya Bank

Kalyan Educational Society versus Punjb National Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Bolin Chetia

Raghavendra Oil Mill through P v Masthan Reddy versus Icici Bank Limited

Sleev Tobacco Private Limited versus Bank of Baroda