Allowed

Abhijeet Powgen Limited and Ors. v. Uco Bank

DRAT14 May 2024IA/261/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of a 72-day delay in filing an appeal. The delay was attributed to conflicting legal advice from counsel and an advocate's illness. The court also ruled that the appeal would be taken on file pending no other defects.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed; appeal taken on file; interim stay of proceedings below granted.

Abhijeet Powgen Limited and Ors. versus Uco Bank — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 261/2024 (CoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 646/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Abhijeet Powgen Ltd & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

UCO Bank & Ors. …Respondent/s Amrita R. Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants. Mr K. B. Nair, i/b Intralegal, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶7

I.A No. 261 of 2024 is an application for condonation of 72 days delay in filing this appeal. The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 11.12.2023 under section 20(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act, for short) on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T) in IA No. 1396 of 2022 in TA No. 1921 of 2016, to produce documents by the Defendant No. 9 before the Registrar for verification. 2. The delay was allegedly caused by the appellants because confusion was created on whether an appeal or review had to be filed to challenge the order. An advocate from Kolkata was consulted in the first instance, who advised filing of an appeal whereas the advocate at Nagpur advised Review. Thereafter, a third opinion was sought which caused some delay in filing this appeal. The counsel was also unwell and indisposed in between, which caused a further delay. It is stated

¶8

¶9

that there were no willful laches on the part of the appellants and therefore, the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal is sought to be condoned.

¶10

The production of the documents as secondary evidence in the original application was allowed by the DRT vide the impugned order. The circumstances for accepting the secondary evidence did not arise for consideration before the Tribunal, and hence, the application should have been dismissed, submits the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. Pending hearing of the application for condonation and the appeal, a stay of the proceeding before the Tribunal below is sought. 4. Heard both sides.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel for appellants relied upon a couple of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his argument that while the application for condonation of delay is under consideration, interim orders of stay could also be made to prevent injustice. In Shaikh Ibrahim Janmohammed Vs. Thekchand fakirchand Rathod and Ors . 1986 SCC online BOM 245 it was held that the Appellate court was entitled to grant interim relief till the decision in the application for condonation of delay is decided. Similarly, in Mool Chand Yadav and Anr. Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Ltd, Rampur and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 484 it was held that during the pendency of the appeal, any order having serious civil consequences connected with the appeal must be stayed.

¶12

On the question of limitation, the decision in Rafiq and Anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr. (1981)2 SCC 788 is relied upon to argue that the

¶13

¶14

party should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent or the lawyer.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application for condonation of delay stating that there are no sufficient reasons for condoning delay.

¶16

The appeal was not filed in time because the appellants had sought multiple opinions from counsel who had different opinions on whether to file an appeal or a review. There is only 72 days delay in filing the appeal which cannot be a reason for throwing overboard the appeal at the threshold. Hence, an opportunity is granted to the appellants to contest the appeal on its merits.

¶17

As a result, the application is allowed and the delay of 72 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal shall be taken on file if there are no other defects to be cured.

¶18

Post before the Registrar on 29.05.2024.

¶19

Sd/Chairperson

¶20

mks-01

¶21

Abhijeet Powgen Limited and Ors. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijeet Powgen Limited and Ors. v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apex India Company and Another versus Indian Bank

Vinodkumar Ramgopalji Gilada versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Aditi Re Rolling Mills Limited versus State Bank of India

Shobha Dheeraj Lad versus Punjab National Bank

Artiston Apparels Pvt. Ltd. versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Shri Shreyas K Doshi versus Icici Bank Limited