Dismissed

Sainulabdeen v. Authorized Officer

DRT19 Dec 2023MA/296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant petitioned to condone a 228-day delay in filing a motion to set aside the dismissal of a special appeal. The tribunal rejected the plea, citing lack of explanation for delay and lack of merits after the secured asset sale was confirmed, and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

None granted; application for condonation of delay to set aside dismissal order dismissed.

Sainulabdeen versus Authorized Officer — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

Fair Order

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

DATED THIS 19^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

M.A No. 296 of 2022

¶6

¶7

S.A No. 179 of 2018

¶8

Between

¶9

Sainulabdeen, S/o. Jamal Muhammed, Sabeel Manzil, Cheruveli, Chullimanoor P.O, Nedumangad, Trivandrum permanently residing at Thinavila Veedu, Perumkoor, Konchira P.O, Vembayam, Trivandrum.

¶10

--- Petitioner/Applicant

¶11

And

¶12

Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, ARM Branch, 1^st Floor, Pukalakkat Lekshmi Bai Towers, T.D. Road, North End, Kochi-35.

¶13

--- Respondent/Defendant

¶14

This Application coming on 05.12.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. R. Ananthapadmanabhan Advocate for the Petitioner/ Applicant and Ms. Ruby Paulose Counsel for the respondent/defendant and upon hearing arguments of both sides’ Counsels and upon perusing the material records, this Tribunal delivered the following:

¶15

MA No.296/2022 in SA 179/2018

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

M.A No. 296/2022:- This petition is filed praying to condone the delay of 228 days in filing the petition to set aside the final order dated 19.01.2021 dismissed the SA No.179/2018.

¶19

It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the hearing was held through Video Conference on the date of dismissing the SA for default on 19.01.2021 and that the period of 19.01.2021 till the date of judgment dated 28.03.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be condoned in filing the petition to restore the SA and that there is 228 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 19.01.2021.

¶20

The Counsel for the respondent submitted this petition is not maintainable. There was no representation by the counsel for the petitioner on previous occasions when the mater had been posted for final order and that this SA was filed only after confirmation of the sale of the secured asset and that the Counsel for the petitioner was not keen in advancing the argument and that the delay in filing the petition to restore the SA has not been properly explained and that the SA was dismissed for default much prior to the lock down period of Covid 19 pandemic restriction and that therefore the petition may be dismissed.

¶21

When the matter came up for final hearing on 19.01.2021 there was no representation for the petitioner and that the counsel for the respondent had appeared before this Tribunal on the said date. Since the argument was not advanced by the side of the petitioner, SA was dismissed for default.

¶22

The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order has to be allowed in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It cannot be disputed that the SA was dismissed for default on 19.01.2021 much earlier to the Covid 19 pandemic restriction. Hence this Tribunal does not find any valid force in the above submission of the Counsel for the petitioner. Each and every day delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order of SA has not been satisfactorily and properly explained in the affidavit filed along with the petition. Above all, there are no merits in the SA which

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

MA No.296/2022 in SA 179/2018

¶25

¶26

was filed after confirmation of Sale of the secured asset. Further the petitioner has not pointed out in the affidavit as to whether he has got valid defense to succeed in his case, if the SA is restored to file.

¶27

In view of the foregoing reasons, this petition, MA No.296/2022 stands dismissed.

¶28

Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of December, 2023.

¶29

[Su. WILLYAHM] PRESIDING OFFICER

¶30

Mj/

¶31

Page 3 of 3

Sainulabdeen v. Authorized Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainulabdeen v. Authorized Officer

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

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Messers John Varieties

Ms Mkd Infrastructure and Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Mrs Reshma Parmeshwar Meshram versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus M/S B.M. Traders

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Achin Mehta

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sandeep Kumar