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
…