Allowed

Jowender Singh Sethi v. M/s tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

DRT23 Jun 2025MA/75/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal condoned a four-day delay in filing an application under Section 17 due to the applicant's bona fides, citing the inability to find a lawyer and the senior citizen's condition, ordering a court fee of Rs. 2,500.

What did the court decide?

M.A. No.75 of 2025 allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,500 court fees; underlying application S.A. (D) No.548 of 2025 registered.

23.06.2025

Exh.

Roznama-MDRT-II
M.A. No.75 of 2025

Next date

Mr Sujeet Kurup, Advocate for the
Applicants.
Mr Rajesh Nagori i/b Mr R.L. Motwani,
Advocate for Respondent.
Heard on M.A. No.75 of 2025.
The Applicants has preferred this Misc.
Application for Condonation of delay of 04
days in filing the Application under
Section 17 being S.A. (D) No.548 of 2025.

Ld.
Advocate
for
the
Applicants
submits that when order u/s. 14 dated
31.01.2025 was passed by the Ld. CMM the
same was served upon the Applicants on
07.02.2025. The Applicants had to apply
for the certified copy of the order passed
by the Ld. CMM and the same was
received on 07.02.2025. Thereafter, the
Applicants approached the Hon’ble High
Court and the Hon’ble High Court passed
order dated 07.03.2025 thereby dismissing
the said petition by keeping all points
open. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants
further submits that Applicant No.1 is a
senior citizen, bedridden and unable to
move. Hence, Applicant No.2, wife of
Applicant No.1 had to search for a lawyer

at this Tribunal and was able to find a
lawyer only around 25.03.2025 and
thereafter, on 27.03.2025, S.A. (D) No.548 of 2025 was filed instead of on 24.03.2025 which was not in time and hence, prays that the delay of 04 days may be condoned. The Applicant for condonation of delay is not opposed by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent. Heard both sides. Perused the Record.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A.
Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024 observed that while considering an application to condone delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the
bonafides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Hence, this Tribunal will not decide on the merits of
the matter but will rather consider the
bonafide shown in the explanation. In the above facts and circumstances,
M.A. No.75 of 2025 is allowed subject to
cost quantified in the sum of Rs.2,500/-
payable to DRT Bar Association for

at this Tribunal and was able to find a

lawyer
only
around
25.03.2025
and

thereafter, on 27.03.2025, S.A. (D) No.548
of 2025 was filed instead of on 24.03.2025
which was not in time and hence, prays
that the delay of 04 days may be
condoned.
The Applicant for condonation of delay
is not opposed by the Ld. Advocate for the
Respondent.
Heard both sides. Perused the Record.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

H.
Guruswamy
&
Ors
Versus
A.

Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated
02.04.2024 observed that while considering
an application to condone delay, the court
must not start with the merits of the main
matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the

bonafides of the explanation offered by the
party seeking condonation. Hence, this
Tribunal will not decide on the merits of

the matter but will rather consider the

bonafide shown in the explanation.
In the above facts and circumstances,

M.A. No.75 of 2025 is allowed subject to

cost quantified in the sum of Rs.2,500/-

payable to DRT Bar Association for

	purchase of books and periodicals.
	S.A. (D) No.548 of 2025 be registered and listed on 24.06.2025 for hearing after due compliance.
nrb - 04	File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

purchase of books and periodicals.

S.A. (D) No.548 of 2025 be registered
and listed on 24.06.2025 for hearing after
due compliance.

nrb - 04

File be consigned to the Record Room
after due compliance.
Sd/-
P.O.
DRT-II

Closed

Jowender Singh Sethi v. M/s tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jowender Singh Sethi v. M/s tata Capital Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Hema Prabhakar Barapatre versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Jay Pravin Khanvilkar versus Bank of India

Jem and Associates versus Caparo Financial Solutions Limited

sikkim ferro alloys limited versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Vinsari Fruitech Ltd. versus Karur Vysya Bank

Prabhat Terpenes Synthetics Limited versus Bank of Baroda