Ghanshyamdas Gems versus Punjab National Bank

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Appeal Dy. No.898 of 2024 -DRAT-Kolkata

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT

¶4

KOLKATA

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Chamber Appeal Dy No. 898 of 2024

¶7

In Appeal Dy. No. 510 of 2024 (Arising out of M.A. No. 68 of 2023 in S.A. 31 of 2014 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)

¶8

Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jewels, a partnership firm, represented by its Managing Partner, namely Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, having its registered office at C-1, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001.

¶9

.…Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

Punjab National Bank, a Banking Company within the meaning of Banking Companies (Transfer and Undertaking) Act, 1980, represented by Authorized Officer, inter alia, having its Branch Office at 4-1-426, Bank Street, Koti Hyderabad – 500001.

¶12

		….Respondents
Counsel for Appellants	Mr. Ankit Counsel	Chatterjee, Learned
Counsel for Respondents	Mr. P.K.	Mukherjee, Learned
	Counsel
JUDGMENT	: 6^th	February, 2025

¶13

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶14

Admission

¶15

I.A. No. 559 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

Appeal Dy. No. 898 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

2. I.A. No. 559 of 2024 Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of allegedly 11 days in filing the Appeal against an order of the Registrar dated 04.09.2024 declining to register the Appeal due to nonpayment of Court fee of Rs.99,750/-. 3. An Appeal is filed by the Appellant against an order passed by Learned DRT-1 Hyderabad dated 10^th May, 2024 in M.A. No. 68 of 2023 in S.A. No. 31 of 2014. Registry reported that there a deficiency of Rs.99,750/-. Time was granted to the Appellant to make good the deficiency. But the same was not made good. Consequently, the Learned Registrar vide order dated 04.09.2024 declined to register the Appeal.

¶19

4. Feeling aggrieved, Appellant preferred the Appeal on 30.09.2024 against the Registrar’s Order with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that on 4^th September, 2024 he appeared before the Registrar. Hearing was made and the Registrar reserved the order. Thereafter, Appellant enquired on 05.09.2024 about the orders and was informed that the orders would be passed. However, on 16.09.2024 Appellant came to know about the impugned order when he found on the website that matter is disposed of. However, on enquiry Appellant found the order was passed on 09.09.2024. Accordingly, Application for condonation of delay of 11 days is preferred.

¶20

3

¶21

Appeal Dy. No. 898 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶22

5. Rule 6(5) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 reads as under:

¶23

“6.(5) An appeal against the order of the Registrar under subrule (4) shall be made within fifteen days of making of such order to the [Chairperson] concerned in his chamber, whose decision thereon shall be final.”

¶24

6. An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI is filed against an order passed under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 18 makes the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act applicable under the SARFAESI Act. Section 20 (3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act reads as under:

¶25

“20.(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of [thirty days] from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:

¶26

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of [thirty days] if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it, within the period.”

¶27

7. Accordingly, delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 is liable to be condoned as provided under Section 20(3) proviso (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs Bank of India 2015 AIR (SCW) 4594 and Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (2006) 12 SCC 583. There cannot be any dispute that Rules are always subservient to the provisions of the Act.

¶28

4

¶29

Appeal Dy. No. 898 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 8. As far as question of Appeal under Rule 6 (5) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 is concerned, there is a specific time period of 15 days in preferring the Appeal. There is no exception for extension of the period for preferring the appeal. If it would have been the intention of the legislature that the delay can be condoned, same provision, as provided under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 could have been made hereon so. A bare perusal of the provision would show that the legislature attached a finality to the proceedings which was the aim and object of enacting the SARFAESI Act as well as RDB Act wherein the main purpose of the Act was to cut short the time being consumed in litigation.

¶30

9. On factual aspects a report is called from the Registry about the date when the order was uploaded? A screenshot is brought on record wherein it is shown that the order dated 04.09.2024 was uploaded on 05.09.2024. Hence the submissions made by the Appellant are negated. The ground taken by the Appellant is against the record. Such a ground is simply made to make out a ground for condonation of delay. Since the order was already uploaded on 05.09.2024, there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. Provisions for filing the Appeal within 15 days is mandatory in nature. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to condone the delay.

¶31

ORDER

¶32

5

¶33

Appeal Dy. No. 898 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata I.A. No. 559 of 2024 is dismissed. Consequently, Chamber Appeal Dy. No. 898 of 2024 is also dismissed.

¶34

No Order as to costs.

¶35

File be consigned to Record Room.

¶36

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

¶37

Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶38

Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6^th day of February 2025.

¶39

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶40

Dated 6^th February, 2025

¶41

1 /tp

Ghanshyamdas Gems v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyamdas Gems v. Punjab National 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

Similar cases

State Bank Of India versus Bank of Baroda

Dr Binod More versus Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Ms Asha Stimex Ltd. and Anr.

Soumya Ranjan Swain versus Bank of Baroda

Alla Ramasheshaiah versus Bank of Baroda

K D Enterprise and Anr. versus Indian Bank