AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 13.11.2024 passed by DRT-I, Hyderabad in M.A. 42 of 2024 arising out of S.A. 511 of 2014 (Kosetty Krishna -vs- Bank of Baroda). Order dated 13.11.2024 reflects that direction was issued to the Bank to pay the amount of Rs.1,37,80,233.00 to the Applicant.
It appears that Appeal Diary No. 1060 of 2024 was filed by the Appellant along with I.A. 571 of 2024, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 169 days. This appeal was filed after the orders of the Division Bench passed on 29.4.2024 wherein eight weeks' time was granted to the Appellant which was not complied with within the stipulated period and I.A. 571 of 2024 was dismissed by this Appellate Tribunal.
Writ Petition No. 11370 of 2025 was filed by the Bank against the order of dismissal dated 5th February, 2025. Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad on 29.4.2026 wherein the Hon'ble High Court in paragraphs 21 to 23 held that:
'21. Significantly, the Docket Order passed by the DRT-I on 13.11.2024 was subsequent to the order of the Division Bench dated 29.04.2024 whereby the petitioner was directed to file an Appeal within eight weeks from the date of the said order i.e., by 28.06.2024. It may be presumed that the respondent No.4 was constrained to file the M.A. before the DRT 1, Hyderabad claiming the interest component since the petitioners failed to pursue the appeal remedy within the timeframe given by the High Court.
22.In fact, the writ petitioners' Appeal was filed in the DRAT after the Docket Order dated 13.11.2024 of the DRT and in fact also after 30.11.2024 which was the cut-off date within which the petitioners had to pay Rs.1,37,80,233/- to the respondent No.4. The writ petitioners' Appeal before the DRAT was filed on 10.12.2024. The above date further reinforces the fact that the petitioners have been lethargic and lax in taking their duty to comply with the High Court's direction with seriousness. The writ petitioners' Appeal before the DRAT appears to be an after-thought and only in reaction to the Docket Order passed by the DRT-1 on 13.11.2024.
23.We do not find any scope for the petitioners to contest the directions passed by the DRT-1, Hyderabad after its obligation became complete and concluded by the docket order dated 13.11.2024. The Appeal filed by the petitioners before the DRAT subsequent thereto is only an after-thought. Even otherwise, the petitioners have failed to satisfy the requirement of section 5 of the Limitation Act in terms of giving sufficient cause to explain the delay of 169 days in filing of the Appeal before the DRAT. The undisputed facts before the Court as well as the conduct of the petitioners do not call for interference with the impugned order passed by the DRAT on 05.02.2025."
Instant appeal is preferred against Docket Order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Learned DRT which is already considered and held to be valid order in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Accordingly, no further steps have been taken in this appeal in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Bank is directed to comply the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad within a period of four weeks.
File be consigned to Record room.
Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.
Order pronounced in open Court.