191090004202020_bc2ad8f5e290504e10c3152863cf50c6.pdf

Diary No. 420 of  2020-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
  (Diary No. 420 of 2020)
           (Arising out of O.A. 1466 of 1999 in DRT-1, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
1. Smt. Bonthu Aruna, wife of Sri Bonthu Venkata Reddy, Block 20, 
Flat 
No. 901, My Home Vihanga Apts., Financial District, 
Gachibwti, 
Hyderabad – 500 032
2. Smt.   K. Jhansi Vani, wife of Sri Satyanarayana Reddy, H. No. 
50-A, Wester Hills, Addagutta Co-op., Society, Kukatpally, 
Hyderabad – 500 090.
            … Appellants
                                  -Versus-
1. State Bank of India, SAM Branch, 4-1-1240/G & H, 2nd Floor, King 
Koti, Hyderabad, Telengana State;
2. M/s. Andhra Pipes Limited, 11-4-671, Red Huts, Hyderabad;
3. Smt. Vimal Gupta (died per LRs. 3 and 4)
4. M.K. Gupta, R/o 8-2-686/B/M/K, Road No. 12, Bnjara Hills, 
Hyderabad;
5. D.K. Gupta, R/o 8-2-686/B/M/K, Road No. 12, Bnjara Hills, 
Hyderabad;
6. M/s. Model Finance Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, 6-
3-456/A/1, Panjgutta, Hyderabad;
7. Tama Koti Reddy, 267, Nilgiri Apartments, Alakananda Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
                …  Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants
…   Mr.  Nemani Srinivas
Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank    …   Ms. Mekhala Kanji
Respondents No. 2 to 7
…  None
JUDGMENT                         :   27th April, 2022
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : 
I.A. 252 of 2020
This application  is for condonation of delay of 591 days in filing 
the appeal against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2019 
passed by Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in O.A. 1466 of 1999 wherein 
Learned DRT had allowed the O.A. against Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4. 

2
      
 Diary No. 420 of  2020-DRAT-Kolkata  
Defendants No. 7 and 8 were allowed to claim surplus amount from 
the sale of secured assets.
This appeal is preferred by Respondents No. 7 and 8.  
I have heard Learned Counsel for Appellant as well as 
Respondent No. 1 and have perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the delay has 
duly been explained. It is alleged in para 11 of the application that due 
to ill health of husband of Appellant No. 1, namely Smt. Bonthu Aruna, 
appeal could not be filed. It is further submitted that  earlier counsel 
did not inform the Appellant regarding disposal of the O.A. Appellant 
came to know only in the month of November, 2019 when the certified 
copy of the order was delivered to him. Thereafter, Appellant 
contacted the Counsel in the month of March, 2020. A proposal for 
OTS was also submitted to the Bank but the same did not materialize 
and the writ petition was returned by the Hon’ble High Court of 
Telangana. Thereafter, due to pandemic situation, the appeal could not
be filed.
 
At the very outset, it appears that Appellants have not been able 
to explain the delay which is required under Section 5 of the Limitation 
Act. It is settled legal proposition that day to day delay has to be 
satisfactorily explained. 
So far as the ground of ill health of the husband of the Appellant 
No. 1 is concerned, the same has not been substantiated with any 
medical prescription or medical record.  
Appellants themselves conceded that they came to know of the 
disposal of the O.A. in the month of November, 2019 whereas this 
appeal was preferred on the 11th of November, 2020. Though an effort 
is made to take advantage of the pandemic situation prevailing since 
March, 2020 but failed to give satisfactory explanation for not filing the 
appeal immediately after November, 2019; before the declaration of 
the pandemic situation in March, 2020; though even then the time to 
prefer the appeal, within the prescribed period, had expired. In such

3
      
 Diary No. 420 of  2020-DRAT-Kolkata  
circumstance, Appellants could not even take advantage of the orders 
of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed with reference to the pandemic 
situation. 
Having considered the submission and the discussions made 
herei

…