The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea for condoning 80 days of delay in filing a second appeal due to lack of sufficient cause, noting the absence of a medical certificate for alleged illness, thereby setting aside the second appeal.
Application for condonation of delay and the Second Appeal were 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.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
MA/8/2024 In SA No.29/2023
M/S ARIHANT BOX FACTORY Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA
02.02.2024 Item No.64
Present: Sh. Sagar Ratusaria, Counsel for the MA Applicant. Sh.Yogesh Kumar, Counsel for respondent bank.
Heard on the application for condoning the delay of 80 days in filing the present MA. SA No.29/2023 was dismissed in default on 29.09.2023 and the present MA was filed on 17.01.2024. On behalf of the bank, it has been argued that there is delay of 80 days in filing the MA and no sufficient cause has been for condoning the delay. Mr.Yogesh Kumar also argued that against the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by this Tribunal, applicant had approached the DRAT, which also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 22.08.2023. In this SA, applicant had challenged the sale of three properties. Counsel for the applicant has argued that though the applicant was aware of the fact that this case has been posted for 29.09.2023, yet, the Counsel had noted down the wrong date. Accordingly, he could not appear on that date.
I have considered the contentions canvassed at the Bar.
A perusal of the order dated 13.07.2023 shows that a detailed order was passed in respect of all the contentions raised by the applicant. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been averred that applicant was ill and so he could not appear in time on 29.09.2023. However, this application is not supported by medical certificate. I am of the considered view that applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present MA. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is hereby dismissed, consequently the present MA is also dismissed . Counsel for the applicant states that bank has issued fresh dispossession notice in respect of the third property. Applicant may well challenge the same by filing a separate SA.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court. MANOJ/Dated/02.02.2024
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable without supporting medical certificate.
Whether the Second Appeal filed by the applicant against an order of the DRAT can be treated as sufficient cause for delay.
Whether the impugned second appeal against sale of properties should be allowed in view of the dismissal of the condonation application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S ARIHANT BOX FACTORY
STATE BANK OF INDIA
A S Narang
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
