Bank Of India vs M/s Manish Construction & Ors.

The present case was heard and reserved for orders on the issue of limitation by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.09.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after passing the order impugned, an opinion was sought from the empanelled advocate with regard to the present appeal, which was received after a month. Thereafter, the permission was sought from the higher authorities of the Bank and in the said process, a long time lapsed. It was also contended that after obtaining the permission, the appellant approached the legal department at Allahabad for preparing and filing the present appeal and in these processes, a delay of 227 days has occurred in filing the present appeal, which is neither deliberate nor malafide. It was, therefore, prayed that the same may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merits.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the delay of 227 days has not properly been explained by the counsel for the appellant and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court filed by the appellant is not applicable in the present case and no good ground is made out for condoning the delay. It was further contended that the decision to file the present appeal before this Tribunal was taken by the appellant only when the respondents approached the Bank for settlement of outstanding dues and release the property, which was auctioned, as the sale was set aside by the Tribunal below. It was also contended that the plea of the appellant that the empanelled advocate of the Bank was having some personal difficulties and he had taken time of one month in giving his opinion as to how the delay of 227 days has occurred, which is required to be explained, but the same has not been detailed by the appellant by giving any cogent reason. It was thus prayed that the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant may be rejected.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

It is settled proposition of law that the length of delay is not material, if there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay and also that generally, the court should be liberal in condoning the same, but for this purpose, the applicant has to show the sufficient reason, which may entitle for condonation of delay. In the instant case, admittedly, the impugned order was passed on 13.05.2019 in presence of the counsels for the parties including the appellant-Bank, so the appeal ought to have been filed before 12.06.2019, but the same was filed on 27.01.2020 with the delay of about 227 days. The reason as shown is that the empanelled counsel has taken a month in giving his opinion for filing the present appeal and thereafter, time was consumed in taking permission from the higher authorities of the appellant-Bank, but the story seems to have been cooked by the appellant for the reason that no date has been mentioned that on which dates the opinion of the empanelled advocate was received and permission of the higher authorities of the Bank was obtained. Secondly, there is no evidence on record that the empanelled advocate has given any opinion or any permission was received from the higher authorities of the Bank for filing the present appeal. Thus, it cannot be believed that such inordinate delay was occurred in obtaining the opinion or permission for filing the present appeal. Thus, there are clear lapses on part of the appellant and no plausible explanation much less sufficient cause is there on record to condone such inordinate delay.

In view of the aforesaid, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties as well as the DRT concerned and be also uploaded on the e-DRT portal.