Public excerpt

excuse and sufficient cause, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. 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. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) -Pages: 9Characters (full): 19900

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

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA 
                         
 
THE HON’BLE  MR.  JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
             CHAIRPERSON 
 
                                  Diary No. 63 of 2024 
         (Arising out of S.A. 171 of 2023 in DRT-II, Hyderabad) 
 
Order No. 16 
 
 
 
 
17.01.2025   
 
 
 
Mrs. Nousheen Fatima & 3 Others 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 … Appellants 
            -Vs-  
HDFC Bank Limited  2 & Others            
 
 
       …  Respondents 
 
Mr. 
Manav 
Gecil 
Thomas 
(Virtual), Learned Counsel for 
Appellants 
 
Ms. 
Mekhala 
Kanji 
(Virtual), 
Learned Counsel for Respondent 
No. 1/ Bank 
 
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :  
  
 
                    I.A. 183 of 2024 
1. 
Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for 
condonation of delay of 98 days in filing the appeal against 
judgment and order dated 7th July, 2023 passed by Learned 
DRT-II, Hyderabad  in S.A. 171 of 2023 (Mrs. Nousheen 
Fatima & Others -vs- The HDFC Bank Limited & Others) . 
Appeal is filed on 19.01.2024. 
2. 
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused 
the records. 
3. 
 
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that 
the 
impugned 
judgment 
and 
order 
was 
passed 
on 
07.7.2023.  Application for certified copy was moved on 
17.10.2023 which was prepared and delivered on the same 
date.  In the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
2
Act, it is stated that one of the family members of the 
Appellant was seriously sick.  This is the reason for which 
Appellants were under mental pressure and could not 
contact their Counsel. There were also financial problems.  
Accordingly, there was a delay. At one point in paragraph 4 
it is stated that delay is of 88 days while in the limitation 
clause condonation of 98 days was sought for while in the 
supplementary affidavit it is submitted that there is delay of 
165 days. Thereafter, it is further stated that the certified 
copy was received on 17.10.2023, therefore, if delay is 
computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy, it 
would be 93 days.  It is further submitted that Appellant  
No. 1 was admitted to the hospital as she has been suffering 
from Asthma, Gallstones and Blood Pressure so all the family 
members were busy there. Appellant No. 2 was also 
suffering from severe Asthma.  It is further stated that the 
earlier 
Counsel 
of 
the 
Appellants 
was 
engaged 
in    
September, 2023 and the appeal is filed in January, 2024, 
no reasons are elaborated in the application for this period. 
4. 
Learned Counsel for Respondent opposed the prayer 
that there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in 
filing the appeal.  
5. 
Impugned order was passed on 07.7.2023 while appeal 
is filed on 19.01.2024.  Application for obtaining certified 
copy was filed on 17.10.2023 which too was filed after the 
period of limitation. Therefore, Appellant cannot take 
advantage of the time consumed in preparation of the copy.  
Accordingly, there is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
3
6. 
As far as condonation of delay in filing the appeal is 
concerned, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 
a recent judgment in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh 
(Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others -vs- Union 
of India & Another [(2023) 10 SCC 531] has held in 
paragraphs 30 and 32 as under:  
 
 
“30.  X x x  condonation of delay being a discretionary power 
 
available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend 
 
upon the  sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of 
 
acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.” 
 
 
 
 
“32. 
x x x At this stage,  we cannot but lament that it is  only 
 
excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for 
 
condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those 
 
hidden forces whose sole agenda is to  ensure that a meritorious claim 
Search more judgments