Public excerpt

excuse and sufficient cause, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) -

Parties: excuse and sufficient cause, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) -Pages: 10Characters (full): 21515

Full judgment text and the official PDF are available after sign-in. This page shows an excerpt for discovery and research previews only.

Reportable/Non-Reportable 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                            
 
 
       
 
 
 
 
 
 
                              Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 
         IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
 
                               Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2024 
              (Arising out of O.A. 120 of 2020 in DRT-II, Hyderabad) 
 
 
 
      HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
             CHAIRPERSON  
    
 
 
 
 
 
NCDEX e Markets Limited, Ackruti Corporate Park, 1st Floor, LBS Marg, 
Kanjurmarg (W), Mumbai - 400 078. 
 
 
           
 
 
 
 
 
       … Appellants 
 
 
 
 
 
-Versus- 
1.  Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Main Branch, Korrapadu Road, YSR 
 
Kadapa Dist. Andhra Pradesh, P.I.N. -  516 001; 
 
2. M/s.    CNX    Corporation  Limited,   represented   by   its    Managing 
 
Director/CEO,  
having its office at 144/14th Floor, Atlanta Building, 
 
Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021, Maharashtra; 
 
3. Anupuru Chinna Dasthagiri, Son of Pedda Khadar, residing at       D. 
 
No. 3/15,  
B. 
Jangalapalli, 
Besta 
Vemula, 
Kadapa 
District,        
 
Andhra Pradesh-516434;  
 
4.  Guduru 
Kulliai 
Swamy, 
Rural 
Warehouse, 
Rep. 
by                    
 
Prop. P. Kullaiswamy, resident of S. No. 421/2, Tadipatri Road, 
 
Karmalavaripalli, Village Mylavaram Mandal, Jammalamudugu, Taloq, 
 
YSR, Kadapa District – 516 434. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                       …  Respondents 
 
Counsel for Appellant       
 
 …    Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Advocate 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Satya Srikant Vutha  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shourjyo Mukherjee 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Aditya Nair 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Dhiraj Mhetre 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Vishwarup Acharyya 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Anindita Chattopadhyay 
 
Counsel for Respondent No. 1       
…    
Ms. Aparajita Rao   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Nabanita Dutta  
           
JUDGMENT                           
:    
25th April, 2025 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :  
 
 
 
 
I.A. 38 of 2025 
1. 
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for 
condonation of 81 days delay in filing the appeal against 
judgment and order dated 25.1.2024 passed by Learned 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
 Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 
2
DRT-II, Hyderabad allowing O.A. 120 of 2020 (Canara Bank 
-vs-  Anupuru Chinna Dasthagiri).  
2. 
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants as well as 
Respondent No. 1/Bank and perused the records.   
3. 
Appeal is filed on 20th December, 2024 against order 
dated 25.1.2024 passed by Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad with 
an application, I.A. 38 of 2025  for condonation of delay of 
81 days on the ground that the Appellants came to know 
about the impugned judgment on 19th August, 2024 when 
the Demand Notice dated 2.8.2024 was served upon him.  
No copy of the judgment was ever served upon the 
Appellants. Appellants were represented through their 
Counsel in the O.A. proceedings. 190 proceedings on similar 
lines were filed against the Appellants wherein 16 Original 
Applications were filed before the Learned DRT, Hyderabad, 
as well as before other Tribunals. Appellants have wrongly 
been held jointly and severally liable for payment of the 
certificate amount.  On receipt of the Demand Notice 
Appellants contacted the erstwhile Advocate who was 
handling the large number of Original Applications filed 
against the Appellants.  There was a bona fide delay on the 
part of the Appellants due to which the Appellants were able 
to arrive at an apprehensive understanding of its exposure 
only on the first week of October, 2024.  Thereafter Counsel 
was appointed; certified copy was applied and obtained. 
Appellants 
have 
their 
registered 
office 
at 
Mumbai.  
Appellants had to consult the Learned Counsel.  Time was 
consumed in the same.  Since there was large number of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
 Appeal Diary No. 1131 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 
3
cases filed against the Appellants, it took time to sc
Search more judgments