Angel Educational Trust vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson

This Application is filed to condone delay of 13 days in preferring the Appeal against Order dated 31.05.2023 in SA No.464/2020 of DRT-II, Bengaluru.

Heard both sides.

Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the reason for delay is explained in paras 9 and 10 of the Affidavit filed in support of Petition. He submitted, as delay is only 13 days, a liberal view may be taken and an opportunity may be given to contest the matter.

On the other hand, Advocate for first Respondent Bank opposed, and submitted that, a detailed Counter is filed opposing the Application, and taking into consideration the objection taken in para 14 of Counter Affidavit, the Application has to be dismissed.

I have perused paras 9 and 10 of Affidavit of Petitioners/Appellants and para 14 of Counter Affidavit of first Respondent Bank.

According to Petitioners/Appellants, Petitioners asked their Counsel to file an Appeal before DRAT, Chennai, but, due to old age, his Counsel informed that he could not appear, and on that, through their relative, Petitioners/Appellants came down to Chennai and engaged present Counsel for filing the Appeal, thus delay. However, the Affidavit is completely silent as to on what date their Counsel was requested to appear before DRAT, Chennai, and who, in turn, on what date informed them that he could not appear, and on what date Petitioners/Appellants came down to Chennai, and engaged the present Advocate.

When relief of condonation of delay is prayed, it is expected that Petitioners shall show sufficient cause for delay of 13 days. But, the Affidavit is very vague without giving details for satisfying delay of 13 days. As rightly objected by first Respondent Bank in its Counter Affidavit, Petitioners/Appellants have not assigned any valid reason for delay in filing the Appeal and they are duty bound to explain each and every day delay, but the Affidavit is completely silent as to each and every day delay.

On a consideration of objection taken by first Respondent Bank in para 14 of Counter Affidavit, I am not inclined to accept the reasons stated in paras 9 and 10 of Petitioners’ Affidavit, as sufficient cause to condone delay of 13 days.

For the above reasons, it is held that Petitioners/Appellants failed to show sufficient reason for delay of 13 days and Application is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Application IA 469/2023 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. Consequently, Appeal A.IR (SA) : 944/2023 is rejected. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.