Dismissed

Usha P v. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Co. Operaative Bank Ltd.

DRAT23 Jun 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application seeking to condone a 552-day delay in filing an appeal against a DRT order. The court rejected reliance on pandemic-related limitation exemptions, noting the appellant had sought remedies in higher courts concurrently.

What did the court decide?

Application IA-274/2022 dismissed; Appeal AIR (SA) 159/2022 rejected; No order as to costs.

Usha P versus Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Co. Operaative Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IA-274/2022 in AIR (SA) 159/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 23^rd of June, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

IA-274/2022

AIR (SA) - 159/2022

[IA 236/2020 in un-numbered Miscellaneous Application in DN No. 279/2020 on the file of DRT- II, Bangalore)

¶10

Between

¶11

Smt. Usha. P, W/o Prasad, No.52, 2^nd Main Road, Nandagokulam, Gokulam 3^rd Stage, Mysore – 570 002. . ……Petitioner/Appellant

¶12

And

¶13

The Authorised Officer,

¶14

Sri Kanyakaparameshwari Co-operative Bank Limited, K.R. Circle, Mysore – 570 001.

¶15

….. Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Srinivassan J For Respondent : M/s. B. S. Mahendra

¶16

¶17

IA-274/2022 in AIR (SA) 159/2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Application is filed to condone delay of 552 days in preferring Appeal against the Order dated 08.10.2020 in IA 236/2020 in un-numbered Miscellaneous Application in D. No. 279/2020 of DRT-II, Bangalore.

¶20

Petitioner/Appellant filed her Affidavit in support of Petition and also filed additional Affidavit. Original Affidavit runs into 16 paras, but the facts relevant for the purpose of delay are narrated in para 14 of said Affidavit. According to Petitioner/Appellant, in view of Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 , delay may not arise in filing Appeal, but to avoid technicalities, Petitioner/Appellant is filing Application to condone delay. In the additional Affidavit also, the same reason is reiterated.

¶21

¶22

IA-274/2022 in AIR (SA) 159/2022

¶23

Respondent filed a detailed Counter disputing all the

¶24

Affidavit averments, contending that Petitioner/Appellant filed this Appeal contrary to the Orders of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 19067/2021. It is also contended that Petitioner/Appellant approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and also DRT with several Applications during the period covered by COVID 19, and as such, this Application is nothing but abuse of process of law, and liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Both sides reiterated the pleas that were taken in Application and Counter, at the time of oral submissions.

¶26

As already referred to above, Petitioner/Appellant mainly claims exemption of limitation by relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 . As rightly pointed out by Advocate for Respondent, Hon’ble Supreme Court, by taking the pandemic situation and outbreak of COVID 19, at different intervals, exempted period of limitation, as it was difficult for

¶27

¶28

IA-274/2022 in AIR (SA) 159/2022

¶29

parties to approach Courts and Tribunals. As seen from record, impugned Order is dated 08.10.2020 and Petitioner/Appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 1503/2021 after the DRT passed impugned Oder. Petitioner/Appellant also filed Writ Petition No. 19067/2021 and also filed Applications before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 19064/2021, in December, 2021, in January, 2022, in February, 2022, in April, 2022 and in June, 2022. When Petitioner/Appellant is able to approach Hon’ble High Court through various Petitions during the very same period, it is not open to Petitioner/Appellant to contend that Appeal could not be filed due to pandemic situation and Orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court comes to her rescue.

¶30

On a scrutiny of entire material, including various orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 19067/2021, I have to accept objections of Bank raised in the Counter to deny the relief claimed in the Petition.

¶31

¶32

IA-274/2022 in AIR (SA) 159/2022

¶33

For the above reasons, I am of the view that the

¶34

Application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶35

In the result: Application IA-274/2022 is dismissed. Consequently Appeal AIR (SA) 159/2022 is rejected. No order as to costs. All other Applications, if any, stand closed.

¶36

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 23^rd of June, 2023]

¶37

CHAIRPERSON

¶38

Usha P v. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Co. Operaative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha P v. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Co. Operaative Bank Ltd.

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

M/s Anak Exports Pvt. Ltd. versus Manmohan Singh Jain

Mr Lukman Julfair Ali a versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

P.Kameswari versus State Bank of India & Ors.

M S Yelagiris Diary Farm and 3 Ors. versus Indian Bank

Tek Wizard versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

M/s Vaikund Property Development Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Indian Bank