Dismissed

D.Jayasudha v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

DRAT10 Mar 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai dismissed a condonation of delay application filed by an appellant. The appellant sought to challenge an order rejecting their earlier special appeal filed under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal noted that the original challenge was limited to the sale intimation letter without impugning the sale itself, rendering it unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal and the delay condonation application were rejected as an attempt to protract proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the appeal filed by the appellant by dismissing the application for condonation of delay.

D.Jayasudha versus Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 10^th Day of March, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

IA 123/2024 (Delay)

¶5

¶6

AIR (SA) 1608/2023

¶7

(Arising out of SA Dy.No.191/2023 on the file of DRT - III, Chennai)

¶8

Between

¶9

Mrs.D.Jayasudha, W/o.Devarasu, No.37, Nadutheru, Arumparthapuram, Villanur, Pudhuchery-605 110. ..…Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

The Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Arumparthapuram Branch, No.6, Ground Floor, Villianur Main Road, Arumparthapuram, Pondicherry-605 110.

¶12

M.Prakash, S/o.Mohan, No.6, Shenbagavalli Street, Palaniappa Nagar, Odiampet, Pondicherry-605 110.

¶13

P.Santhi, W/o. Palanisamy, Mettu Street, Melsanthanmangalam, Koorkadu, Pondivherry-605 110. …..Respondents Counsel for Appellant : Mr.R.Munuswamy Counsel for R1 : Mr.S.Parthasarathy Counsel for R2 & R3 : None

¶14

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Counsel for R1 are present.

¶17

This application is filed to condone the delay of 168 days in filing the appeal. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – III, Chennai, in Dy.No.191/2023 dated 13.04.2023. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner filed SA Dy. No.191/2023 challenging the sale intimation letter dated 21.12.2022. When this SA Dy.191/2023 was listed for hearing on maintainability, there was no representation for the petitioner or petitioner’s counsel. Therefore, SA Dy.191/2023 was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 13.04.2023. Against the said order, this appeal is filed on 28.10.2023. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that against the order passed in SA Dy.191/2023, petitioner approached Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide WP No.13961/2023 which was disposed on 01.06.2023 and the order is as follows:

¶18

“ It appears that the petitioner has also filed an application/appeal, bearing SA Dy.No.191/2023, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the same has been dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 13.04.2023.

¶19

It is trite law that the petitioner cannot avail tow remedies for the same purpose or on the same cause of action. Now, as the application/appeal has been dismissed for default and non-prosecution, it is for the petitioner to assail the same in accordance with law.

¶20

In the light of the subsequent order passed dismissing the application/appeal of the petitioner, the present writ petition cannot be entertained.

¶21

The writ petition, as such, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dismissing the application/appeal for default and non-prosecution by the DRT – III, Chennai, as may be permissible under law. In that event, all the contentions are kept open. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.13608 and 13609 of 2023 are closed.”

¶22

¶23

Thereafter, this appeal is filed and hence it contributed to the said delay of 168 days.

¶24

Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that SA Dy.191/2023 was dismissed for nonprosecution. That apart, the reason stated for delay is that petitioner applied for Certified Copy of the order passed in SA Dy.191/2023. Only after getting the Certified Copy, petitioner filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the reason stated for the delay in getting certified copy cannot be accepted.

¶25

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶26

From the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that what was challenged in SA Dy.191/2023, was a sale intimation letter. There was no challenge made to either the sale notice or the subsequent sale. Without challenging the sale, the intimation given in respect of the sale cannot be challenged independently. That apart, after the disposal of the SA Dy.191/2023, petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court. Even after the disposal of W.P. No.13961/2023 on 01.06.2023, there is a delay of more than four months in filing this appeal. Thus the reasons stated by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner for condonation of the delay cannot be accepted. This application is filed only to protract the proceedings.

¶27

In the said circumstances, this IA 123/2024 (Delay) is dismissed, resulting in rejection of the appeal AIR 1608/2023.

¶28

D.Jayasudha v. Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Jayasudha v. Union Bank of India (Corporation 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus B.Nirmala (Deceased) & Others

Rajkumar versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Jil Alexander Terrence Nesamony versus Union Bank of India

Mrs Hemavathy H N versus Bank of Baroda

M/s. Grand White Palace LLP versus State Bank of India

M/s a.W.Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus a.O.Yes Bank Ltd. & Anr.