The Tribunal condoned a delay of 13 days in filing an appeal. The appellant justified missing the deadline by claiming non-service of critical orders and directions to the registry to number the appeal.
Condonation of 13 days' delay in filing the appeal; instruction to registry to number the appeal.
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.
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
I.A. No. 458/2025 (CoD) In Regular Appeal Dy. No; 1044/2025
Dated: 08.08.2025
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioner/Appellant for seeking urgent relief.
This Application is filed for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal.
It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant that the Petitioner/Appellant is the successful Auction Purchaser. It was impleaded in SARFAESI proceedings initiated in S.A. No. 82/2025. Learned Presiding Officer passed an order on 27.05.2025 stating that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of IBC is in operation.
It is also informed that there are two mortgagors, one against the owner of the flat and another against the property of the company. However, Learned Presiding Officer restrained the Bank from proceeding further until moratorium is lifted.
There is a delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal. The reason assigned is that the Applicant was not served, with the copy of Securitisation Application or Interim Application or the order passed thereon. After engaging an Advocate and getting a certified copy of the order on 04.07.2025, this Appeal was filed, and thus, occurred a delay of 13 days.
Learned Counsel for Respondents strongly opposes the Application on the ground that Securitisation Application and Interim Application had been communicated to the Respondent on 14.04.2025, 21.05.2025 and 22.05.2025 and again on 27.05.2025. All these communications sent through E-mail with
annexure. Therefore, the averment that the Petitioner/Appellant came to know about Securitisation Application, Interim Application and the order passed thereon etc. only now and after getting the certified copy of the order, this Appeal was filed, is not correct. There is no mention about the number of delays in the prayer in the Application.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
It is seen that important point is raised with regard to moratorium operating against the personal guarantor and the company. It is the case of the Petitioner/Appellant that the moratorium operating against the personal guarantor cannot be relied upon for stopping further proceedings. Thus, considering the fact that the delay is only 13 days, and with a view to give an opportunity to the Petitioner/Appellant to prosecute the Appeal, this Tribunal condones the delay of 13 days in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 458/2025 is allowed.
Registry, DRAT, Mumbai is directed to number the Appeal if it is otherwise in order.
CHAIRPERSON, DRAX CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT. MUMBAI)
PAM
«
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a delay of 13 days in filing an appeal, excusable on grounds of non-receipt of service and pending moratorium, should be condoned.
Whether the operation of moratorium under Section 96 of IBC against a personal guarantor affects the time limit for filing an appeal by an auction purchaser.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/Appellant
Respondents
CHAIRPERSON, DRAX CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
