Dismissed

Akhandala Mani Distributor and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT17 Nov 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a DRT order. It held that the appellant failed to explain the delay after the High Court granted specific time and that illness occurring months after the judgment did not justify the late filing.

What did the court decide?

I.A. 331 of 2025 and Appeal Dy. No. 417 of 2025 were dismissed as time barred. Pending I.A.s were also dismissed.

Akhandala Mani Distributor and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

1 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Appl. Dy No. 417 of 2025

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. 15 of 2018 – DRT- Cuttack)

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Order No.

¶7

17.11.2025

¶8

Akhandalamani Distributors at Plot No. 45, GGP Enclave, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneshwar, Khordha, Odisaha.

¶9

Smt.. Mamata Rath.

¶10

Sri Radha Mohan Rath, Both residing at Plot No. 45, GGP Enclave, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneshwar, PS Mancheswar, Khordha, Odisaha.

¶11

--Vs--

¶12

AO Cum Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Khandagiri Branch, 58, Kharavela Complex, Khandariri Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha, Odisha.

¶13

AO, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar Region, 1^st floor, Bivab Gulmohar, Behara Sahi, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Khordha, Odisha.

¶14

Collector & DM, Khordha, PO Khordha, Odisha.

¶15

Zannat Ara Begum at Plot no. 13/5082, CRP Square, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khordha, Odisha.

¶16

... Respondent

¶17

For Appellant : Mr. K. Chakraborty , ld. adv.

¶18

For Respondent : Mr. Dipanjan Dutta, ld. Adv. Mr. Tuna Sahu, ld. Adv. For auction purchaser

¶19

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶20

I.A. 331 of 2025 is filed u/s 5 Limitation Act praying for

¶21

condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Initially prayer for condonation of 72 days delay was made. Thereafter,

¶22

supplementary affidavit was filed being I.A. 520 of 2025 wherein

¶23

2 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶24

prayer for condonation of 104 days delay is made by the appellant.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as secured creditor bank and auction purchaser and perused the records.

¶26

At the very outset it is to be observed that no written

¶27

objection to the application for condonation of delay is filed either by the respondent bank or auction purchaser.

¶28

Instant appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned DRT – Cuttack dismissing the S.A. 15 of 2018 filed by the appellant herein.

¶29

Appeal is filed on 22.04.2025. Perusal of certified copy would reveal that application for obtaining certified copy was presented before the DRT on 08.05.2025, which was notified on 13.05.2025. It means that application for obtaining certified copy

¶30

itself was moved after expiry of the statutory period of delay in preferring appeal, hence, appellant cannot take any advantage of the time consumed in preparation of the certified copy.

¶31

It is also relevant to note that a Writ Petition No. 3988 of

¶32

2025 was filed by the appellant before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack against the impugned judgement and order

¶33

3 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶34

passed by the learned DRT which was disposed of by the Hon’ble

¶35

High Court on 04.03.2025 with an observation that petitioner may move to the Appellate Tribunal by invoking Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hon’ble High Court further directed that if an appeal under the Act is filed within a period of two weeks, the period shall be taken into consideration after taking into account the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court since 28.01.2025 till date i.e. 04.03.2025 while entertaining the

¶36

application for condonation of delay, if any.

¶37

Thereafter, appeal was filed on 22.04.2025 much beyond

¶38

the time granted by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant was not in a position to file the appeal within the statutory period of limitation or the time granted by the Hon’ble

¶40

High Court due to illness of appellant no.2, who is wife of appellant no.3. Appellant no.2 was suffering from serious gynecological ailment and appellant no.3 was engaged in her treatment as none other in the family to look after her. Accordingly, he could not come to Kolkata to consult any advocate to pursue the matter.

¶41

4 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent bank opposes the prayer

¶43

and submits that documents filed by the appellant did not correlate the period of delay. Further, no explanation is given by the appellant in the Section 5 application as to why the order of the Hon’ble High Court allowing two weeks time to file the appeal was not complied with. The appeal was filed with inordinate delay, but no ground whatsoever is mentioned in the application for not filing the appeal within two weeks from 04.03.2025, the date when the writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶44

In a recent judgement in Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Karnatake Housing Board & Ors. [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969] Hon’ble Apex Court has held that appellant is not only required to explain the delay after expiry of the statutory period of delay rather he is required to explain the delay from the date when limitation is running, meaning thereby appellant has to explain the delay right from day one when the impugned order is passed.

¶45

In the present case if we can grant benefit of Section 14 Limitation Act to the appellant for the period from 28.01.2025 when the writ petition was filed till 04.03.2025 when the same

¶46

5 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶47

was disposed of and after two weeks i.e. 18.03.2025, we have to

¶48

see as to whether the appellant has explained the delay right

¶49

from the date of passing of the impugned order i.e. 30.10.2024

¶50

till 28.01.2025 or 04.03.2025 till the date of filing of the appeal i.e. 22.04.2025?

¶51

At the very outset it is to be observed that in the Section 5 application not a single point has been stated about the delay caused after the time granted by the Hon’ble High Court in the order dated 04.03.2025 wherein two weeks time was granted by the Hon’ble High Court, but the appellant did not avail the opportunity granted by the Hon’ble High Court. Appellant filed the appeal with considerable delay after expiry of two weeks granted by the Hon’ble High Court without giving any explanation for delay.

¶52

As far as period from the date of the impugned judgement and order i.e. 30.10.2024 till 28.03.2025 is concerned, appellant has annexed certain documents of medical treatment, which

¶53

shows that appellant no.2 was admitted in hospital on 30.12.2024 and was discharged on 08.01.2025. Impugned

¶54

judgement and order was passed on 30.10.2024, meaning

¶55

6 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶56

thereby even if we accept the statement made by the learned

¶57

counsel for the appellant regarding illness of appellant no.2 that

¶58

too could not be of any aid to the appellant as appellant no.2 was

¶59

admitted in hospital after about two months for surgery of Hernia and was discharged on 08.01.2025. Law protects the litigant who

¶60

is vigilant about his own right, but luxurious litigation cannot be permitted to continue. There is nothing on record explaining the

¶61

delay in preferring the appeal, although appeal is filed after considerable delay. No sufficient cause for delay could be shown by the appellant.

¶62

I do not find any ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Section 5 application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶63

O R D E R

¶64

I.A. 331 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal Dy.

¶65

No. 417 of 2025 is also dismissed as time barred. All pending

¶66

I.A.s are also dismissed. Costs easy.

¶67

File be consigned to record room.

¶68

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶69

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the

¶70

open Court on this the 17^th day of November, 2025.

¶71

7 Reportable / Non-reportable

¶72

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶73

Dated : 17.11.2025 03 /pkb

Akhandala Mani Distributor and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhandala Mani Distributor and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

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

Suchandra Ghosh versus Alchemist Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors.

Smt Injeti Venkata Lakshmi versus Union Bank of India

Bank of India versus Pushpalaxmi Mohanty Proprietor of Sri Lokenath Stone Crusher

Union Bank of India versus Ms Chitiz Metals And Minerals Trading P Ltd. And Ors.

Sri Rahul Mashahary versus Punjab National Bank

K Rohit Reddy versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited