In this matter, the Appeals Tribunal examined an application seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal against an order from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Court found that the delay could not be satisfactorily explained.
Application No. 369 of 2018 is dismissed. Appeal No. 271 of 2018 is also dismissed being time barred.
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
Appeal No. 271 of 2018
(Arising out of O.A. No. 133 of 2011 in DRT Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
19.07.2023 Central Bank of India ... Appellants -VsUthamavalli Elisa Raju and Ors ... Respondent
Ms. Aparajita Rao, Learned Counsel for the Appellant None for the Respondent.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 369 of 2018 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. Appellant has challenged an order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Ld. DRT Visakhapatnam on an application for review of the order passed in O.A. No. 133 of 2011 dated 01.07.2014. Appeal was filed on 09.11.2018.
Respondents are served but not represented.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that initially after passing of the order, legal opinion was given to the Appellant to prefer a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court but the concerned Law Officer of the Appellant did not agree and opine to file an appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT. Thereafter, the Appellant’s Counsel received the papers on
2
05.11.2018 along with a letter dated 29.10.2018. As far as opinion of the Law Officer dated 13.06.2018 and letter dated 29.10.2018 are concerned, they are not on record.
As far as question of delay is concerned, it is settled legal proposition though a sufficient cause has to be shown by the Appellant for condonation of delay. However, a liberal view may be taken but it does not mean the Appellant is at liberty to file the Appeal on its own sweet will.
In the present case impugned order was passed on 12.01.2018 which was well within the knowledge of the Appellant as it was an order passed on an application for review of the order passed in O.A. No. 133 of 2011 dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter, even after the legal opinion to file the Writ Petition, a different opinion is given by the Law officer although that is not on record, but even if it is considered, then it was provided on 13.06.2018 but the Appeal was filed on 09.11.2018. This delay could not be explained by the Appellant.
The delay in filing the Appeal has to be explained in a satisfactory manner. Sufficient cause has to be shown. Appellant failed to show any sufficient cause.
Accordingly, I am of the view that Application No. 369 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
3
Application No. 369 of 2018 is dismissed. Appeal No. 271 of 2018 is also dismissed being time barred.
No Order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of July, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 19th July, 2023 6/tp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for filing the Appeal.
Whether the Explanation regarding lack of record on part of Appellant's Law Officer is acceptable to the Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Central Bank of India
Uthamavalli Elisa Raju and Ors
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
