Dismissed

Swadesh Ranjan Das v. Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

DRAT4 Aug 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The courtfound the appellant's explanation regarding illness and a busy counsel insufficient to justify the time bar, thereby dismissing both the interim application and the substantive appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Appeal dismissed as time barred.

Swadesh Ranjan Das versus Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Diary No. 640 of 2022

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 274 of 2018 in DRT-II, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

04.08.2023 Swadesh Ranjan Das … Appellant -VsBangiya Gramin Vikas Bank … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Radhey Shyam Tiwary, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶7

Mr. Debasish Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

I.A. 428 of 2022

¶10

Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶11

Impugned order was passed on 6^th June, 2022 while appeal was filed on 18^th November, 2022. Certified copy of the impugned order was applied on 21^st November, 2022 which was prepared on 24^th November, 2022.

¶12

As far as ground for condonation of delay is concerned, it stated that the Appellant received copy of the judgment on 10^th July, 2022 thereafter he got ill and could not contact his Counsel. He contacted his Counsel who gave time on 2^nd September, 2022 for handing over papers and documents. Thereafter the Learned Counsel due to pressure of work prepared the appeal and filed the same on 18^th November, 2022.

¶13

No doubt it is settled that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be dismissed on technical ground rather an opportunity should be provided to the litigant to contest the matter on merits. But at the same time such opportunity does not mean that a litigant, who is not vigilant about his rights, should not be given a long

¶14

¶15

rope to contest the matter at his own sweet will. He has to follow the law. He has to provide sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Merely making vague allegations to cover up time is not sufficient to condone the delay.

¶16

In the present case a very vague ground is taken that the Appellant received copy of the order on 10^th July, 2022 thereafter he contacted his Counsel on 11^th August, 2022, who was busy lawyer and filed the appeal on 18^th November, 2022. No sufficient cause could be shown by the Appellant which can be a good ground for condonation of delay.

¶17

I am of the view the Appellant failed to make out any ground for the condonation of delay. Accordingly, I.A. 428 of 2022, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is dismissed.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal, being Diary No. 640 of 2022, is also dismissed, being time barred.

¶19

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶20

File be consigned to Record room.

¶21

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶22

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶23

02/ac

¶24

Dated 04^th August, 2023

Swadesh Ranjan Das v. Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swadesh Ranjan Das v. Ao Bangiya Gramin Vikas Bank

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

State Bank Of India versus Sankar Charan Pradhan

Punjab National Bank versus Trustees Future and Research Trust

State Bank of India versus M/S the Mother Diagonostic

Indian Bank versus Ms Garden Reach Asbeetos Agency and Anr.

Smfg India Credit Company Ltd. and Anr. versus Sunil Kumar Samanta

Uco Bank versus M/s Jaldhaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.