191090000562019_dbcd60e6c5c3b15c9888b5fb54ce2392.pdf

Dy. No. 56 of  2019-DRAT-Kolkata
     IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Dy. No. 56 of 2019)
(Arising out of S.A. No. 61 of 2013 in DRT –Visakhapatnam)
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
             CHAIRPERSON
1.
Central Bank of India, Gandhigram Branch, Visakhapatnam
             …Appellants
                                  -Versus-
1.
Syed Ahmed Basha, Door No. 24-1895, Flat G.F.-A, Vybhav 
Apartment, Magunta Layout, Nellore
2.
Smt. Pilla Yeedi, W/0 Yeedi Suresh Kumar, Door No. 5-136, 
Chandrapalem, Madhurawada Visakhapatnam
3.
Sri Yeedi Suresh Kumar S/o Thoteswara Rao, Door No. 5-136, 
Chandrapalem Madhurawada Visakhapatnam
                      …  Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants
Mr.Biswajit Bhattacharya,
Learned Counsel for the 
Appellant.
Counsel for Respondent  
None for the  Respondent
JUDGMENT                         
:   
On    16th June, 2023
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :   
Instant I.A. No. 384 of 2019 application under 
Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in 
preferring the Appeal.  Respondents are served but not 
present.  

2
      
 Dy. No. 56 of  2019-DRAT-Kolkata
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and 
perused the Record.  Impugned order was passed by the Ld. 
DRT Visakhapatnam on 5th December, 2017  in S.A. No. 61 
of 2013.
Feeling aggrieved Appeal was preferred on 14.03.2019 
with an application for condonation of delay of 434 days.  As 
would appear from the Application grounds for condonation 
are stated in Para No. 4 to 9 wherein it is submitted that the 
impugned order came to the knowledge of the Appellant on 
14.04.2018 when the copy was dispatched by the Ld 
Tribunal on 21st March, 2018.  Thereafter, the concerned 
branch communicated the order to the regional office on 23rd 
April, 2018. Opinion of the Learned Counsel was obtained 
which was received on 7th June, 2018.  Thereafter it was 
communicated to the Learned Counsel who prepared the 
memo of appeal on 11th June, 2018.  Learned Counsel 
sought certain clarifications and documents which were 
provided on 25th June, 2018 and received in the office of the 
Learned Counsel on 30th June 2018.  
Learned Counsel 
prepared the memo of Appeal on 7th August, 2018 and sent 
the same to the Branch of the Bank who sought the approval 
from the controlling authority which were approved on 9th 
November, 2018.  
Certain legal points were to be 
incorporated on 3rd January, 2019.  
Learned Counsel 
returned the memo for final approval which was approved 
on 20th January, 2019.  Paper was sent to the Branch on 28th 
February, 2019 for signatures which was received in the 

3
      
 Dy. No. 56 of  2019-DRAT-Kolkata
office of the Learned Counsel on 11th March, 2019.  
Thereafter,  Appeal was filed.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the 
delay in filing the Appeal is procedural wherein certain 
approvals were required.  On receipt of the approval,  appeal 
was filed.  It was not an intentional delay. It is further 
submitted that the impugned judgment is passed against the 
law.  Accordingly,  the delay in preferring the Appeal may be 
condoned.  
It is settled legal proposition that provisions of Section 
5 of Limitation Act are equally  applicable to the Government 
or Government functionary or the Financial Institution or 
Bank on  one hand  and the private litigant on the other 
hand.  There is no distinction or special privilege is granted 
to the Bank in the matter for condonation of delay.  Banks 
are supposed to act in accordance with law.  Rather, they 
owe a higher responsibility in comparison to an ordinary 
litigant.  Bank’s officers are expected to act diligently.  They 
have to abide by the law.     Delay of each day has to be 
explained by the Appellant to the satisfaction of the Court. 
In the case at hand,  
bare perusal will show the 
slackness and negligent attitude of the concerned officers of 
the Bank in dealing with the matter.  Although the first 
ground that

…