Tribunal granted leave to file a Chamber Appeal, dismissing the original appeal, after an interim payment, considering substantial pre-deposit already made despite illness and counsel issues.
Petitioners allowed to prosecute the Appeal subject to payment of Rs.1 Lakh within two weeks; application shall otherwise stand dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I
r
■debt recovery Appellate tribunalMUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) I.A. No. 186/2025 (CoD) In . Chamber Appeal Dy No - 427'/2025
Dated: 09,04.2025
1-. The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe Filed by the Petitioners/Appellants for seeking urgent relief. 2. This Application is filed, for condonation :6f delay of 111 days inTiling'the' Chamber Appeal,
)2-O2.5
Q
I
nc n-compliance of Office Objections. Ultimately, th e Appeal got rejected for non-compliance of Office O njections. Out of two properties, the pt Respondent Bank has taken possession of one p operty. Unless the delay is condoned, o Jportunity is given for rectification of the Office Cbjections and Appeal is entertained, the Petitioners/Appellants will be seriously prejudiced. Therefore, this Application. z Learned Counsel for I*1 Respondent Bank 5 trongly objected to this Application on the ground that, despite giving several opportunities, Office Objections have not been complied with. No nedical records are produced to show the ill-health jf the Petitioners/Appellants. The same Counsel, vho is appearing for the Petitioners/Appellants, had also appeared for the Petitioners/Appellants earlier as well. Therefore, the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that her previous Advocate did not communicate the order of Learned Registrar, is not correct, and it is a false statement. NBW was issued against the l8t Petitioner/Appellant and she was absconding, and therefore, the claim of let Petitioner/Appellant that she was not well, is not correct. There are
I
1 ! t
1
C.A-^N0’4-^).ip,26
ju Igements ofHonbIe 'Supreme Court,in, SLP (Civil) Dy. No. 25784/2024 in the case .on Nitih Mahadeo Jawale Vs. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke and SLP (C ivil Nos. 935 - 936/2021 in the case of Rajneesh Kumar vs. Ved. Prakash, wherein the Honble S rpreme Court held that if delay is attributed to ‘ C ounsel and that is not. established and that delay c ifmot be condoned; £. In reply, Learned Counsel for I etitidners/Appellants submitted that earlier one Mr; Akhilesh Upadhya, Advocate, appeared' and. he. filed the Appeal. Due to non -compliance of Office^ Jbjections', the Appeal got rejected On 06.11.2024. )nly thereafter, the Chamber Appeal is filed-by the ’etitidnefs/Appeliants Advocate, Ms.. Swati Sinha, .vho entered appearance ohlybn 12.03.2025. 6. In reply, Learned Counsel for 1st Respondent Bank submitted that, even then, when the- matter was pending before the Registrar, Ms, Swab -Sinha, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Petitioners/Appellants., on 17.04.2024. Therefore, the Petitioners/Appellants cannot say that erstwhile Counsel had not informed of the proceedings.
C,/V'Sy-blo ^)2d25
1 I I
the records.
F
| (2. ft .uy ■ i4o VyO-T 1^°^ • < |
|---|
| ‘9. On such payment by Petitioners/Apfreliahts, 'this Application will be .^Dowed; failing to pay 'the aforesaid, airibunt within the..stipulated, time, this. Application shall stand dismissed. 10; Post the case, bn 28.04.2025, for filing,proof of payments |
| PAM GHAlRPERSOI^Sin^ltfeNNAl' (INiCHARGEtDRAT. MUMBAI) |
I .
1
I •
'■ .1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay in filing Chamber Appeal due to illness and change of counsel should be condoned despite non-compliance with office objections.
Petitioners/Appellants
Respondent Bank
Dy Chairperson
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
