Aleyas T O v. City Union Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT heard an application to condone a 777-day delay in filing appeals. The court rejected the ground that time spent in High Court litigation exempted the delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, holding that the appellants failed to explain the subsequent delay adequately.
What did the court decide?
The appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the appeals was dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 23rd Day of January, 2025
PRESENT: Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan
CHAIRPERSON
IA 7/2025 (Delay) In
AIR 1572/2024
(Arising out of IA 543/2019 in TA 756 of 2016 on the file of DRT - 2, Ernakulam)
Between
- Mr. T.O. Aleyas, S/o Shri Kuruvilla Onnittan, Thottathil House, Muthoor (P.O.), Thiruvalla,
Pathanamthitta District – 689 107.
- Mrs. Thanakkamma Baby, 15/560, Mary Sadanam, Mallappally Taluk Thuruthikad (P.O),
Pathanamthitta District-689 597.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the time spent in filing OP No. 380 of 2022 before the High Court of Kerala can condone a delay of 777 days in filing the appeal before the DRAT under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the reason of searching for an advocate is a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeals.
Whether the application for condonation of delay should be entertained given the absence of proper explanation and procedural missteps.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mr. T.O. Aleyas and Ors
- respondent
City Union Bank Limited and Ors
Coram
G. Chandrasekharan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court