Dismissed

Good Home Private Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

DRAT19 Mar 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application to condone a delay of 2960 days in filing an appeal against an interim order lifting property attachment. Finding the reasons proffered inadequate, the application was dismissed, leading to the rejection of the underlying appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay of 2960 days dismissed; underlying appeal AIR 484/2022 rejected.

Good Home Private Ltd. versus Housing and Urban… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 19^th Day of March, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

IA 114/2023 (Delay)

¶5

¶6

AIR 484/2022

¶7

(Arising out of IA 1409/2014 in Appeal No.24/2009 on the file of DRT, Ernakulam)

¶8

Between

¶9

M/s. Good Homes Pvt Ltd, Vrindavan Diwans Road, Kochi – 682 016 Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.B.R.Ajith At Vrindavan, Opp. Women’s Association Hall, Diwans Road, Kochi – 682 016 ..…Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, HUDCO Bhavan, Indian Habitat Centre, New Delhi. Rep. by its Assistant Law Officer, HUDCO Regional Office, KSHB Commercial-cum-Residential Complex, Pattom Junction, Thiruvananthapuram. …..Respondent

¶12

Counsel for Appellant : Mr.T.R.Sundaram Counsel for respondent : Ms.Deepa Harigovind

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This application is filed to condone the delay of 2960 days in filing the appeal. This appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 1409/2014 in Appeal 24/2009. The said IA 1409/2014 was filed by the petitioner/appellant to lift the attachment ordered by the Ld. Recovery Officer in IA 630/2005 in DRC No.785 in OA 42/2001. This application was partly allowed raising attachment in respect of two properties and dismissing the prayer with regard to the attachment in respect of nine properties. Challenging this order, this appeal AIR 484/2022 is filed, along with an application to condone the delay of 2960 days in filing the appeal.

¶16

It is averred in Para 11 of the affidavit of the Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the impugned order was not challenged immediately because the mortgaged property given to respondent HUDCO, is sufficient enough to clear the entire liability of the bank. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner had been negotiating with the bank for settlement. Petitioner was put to financial strain and loss of income because of the act of the bank in attaching all the properties. It is also submitted that both the parties have challenged this order and these are the reasons for not filing the appeal in time. Pending this application, Rs.12 crores had been recovered by the bank from third parties on depositing money as per the Hon’ble High Court’s order.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for respondent opposed this application on the ground that there is a huge delay in filing the appeal and there is no plausible explanation given for condonation of the delay. Only reasons given are that the property mortgaged was sufficient to satisfy the loan and that petitioner was negotiating with the bank for settlement. These reasons cannot be accepted for condonation of the delay.

¶18

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶19

Admittedly this appeal is filed with a huge delay of 2960 days. Except the reasons that petitioner thought that property mortgaged was sufficient enough to satisfy the loan and that petitioner was negotiating with the bank for settlement, no other reasons are stated

¶20

¶21

to condone the said huge delay of 2960 days. Unless the delay is properly explained, there is no way that this huge delay is condoned. This Tribunal finds that there is no valid, plausible and sufficient reasons are given for condoning the delay and thus, this application IA 114/2023 (Delay) is dismissed, resulting in rejection of the appeal AIR 484/2022.

¶22

Sd/- [Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON

¶23

Good Home Private Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Good Home Private Ltd. v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mm Traders versus Idbi Bank

A Prabhakar Reddy versus Idbi Bank

P Soundarajan versus a O Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

A.O.,Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd. versus Mrs.B.Vijayalakshmi

Govindraj Rao H versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Karnataka Bank Limited versus H Govindraj Rao