Writ Petition No. 1492 of 2012 (L-MW) dated 12th January, 2022

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
                               (Appeal No. 282 of 2018)
                     (Arising out of S.A. 12 of 2016  in DRT, Cuttack)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
15.6.2022
Sk. Alam & Another         
          … Appellants
              -Vs-
Punjab National Bank     
                  …  Respondent
Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned 
Counsel for Appellants 
Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with
Ms. 
Sharmistha 
Pal, 
Learned 
Counsel for Respondent 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
             Application No. 412 of 2018 
The instant application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for 
condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Objection filed by Respondent Bank; taken on 
record.
Heard Learned for both the parties and perused the record.
The   impugned judgment is dated 21st November, 2017. The appeal was preferred 
by the Appellants on 19th July, 2018.  It is admitted in para 4 of the application that the 
Appellants have received copy of the judgment from their Counsel, Mr. Mukherjee, and 
they were advised to prefer an appeal but for want of means and funds they could not 
visit their  Counsel at Kolkata and hence could not approach this Appellate Tribunal for
challenging the impugned order and judgment till May, 2018.  Thereafter Mr. Mukherjee, 
their Counsel, was contacted and the present appeal was preferred by them although a 
ground for the delay in filing the appeal is taken that at first the Memo of Appeal was 
printed on white paper that was returned back and thereafter it was prepared in green
paper and filed. 
Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Appellants had every 
intention to file the appeal within the time but were prevented due to the reasons beyond
their control.

2
Learned Counsel for Respondent raised objection by stating that the ground taken 
by the Appellants that they could not visit Kolkata for want of fund could not be 
substantiated from the material available on record.
It is an admitted fact that  the Appellants were in knowledge  of  the  impugned 
order and judgment dated 21st November, 2017. It is also borne out from the record that 
the Appellants were advised to prefer an appeal by their Counsel but for not filing the 
appeal within the time Appellants took a general ground that they could not come down 
to Kolkata  to contact their Counsel due to paucity of fund and means. No doubt, delay 
can be condoned  but at the same time reasons have to be specific.  It is settled legal 
proposition that the Appellant is required to explain day to day delay, it is not the 
prerogative of the Appellants to make out a general ground and take advantage of it.  
In the present case the Appellants were well within the knowledge but they failed 
to prefer the appeal in time and the grounds taken by them could not be substantiated 
from the materials available on record. Learned Counsel for Respondent has placed 
reliance upon a judgment delivered by  the  Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at 
Bengaluru passed  in  Writ  Petition No. 1492 of 2012 (L-MW) dated 12th January, 2022 
in the matter of Smt. Surrayya Parveen @ Annapoorna -vs- Labour Officer-cum-
Minimum Wages Enquiry Authority & Others).
Having considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for both the
parties, I am of the view that the Appellants failed to make out a case for condoning the 
delay in preferring the appeal.
Accordingly, the Application, being Application No. 412 of 2018, is dismissed. 
Consequently, the appeal, being Appeal No. 282 of 2018, also stands dismissed as 
time barred.
Pending I.A.s, if any, also stand dismissed, being infructuous.
Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellants and the Respondent Bank and a copy 
be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
File be consigned to Record room.
                    
  (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J)
                   
            Chairperson 
Dat

…