AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
Appeal No. 227/2016 is filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 05.07.2016 in Original Application (O.A.) No. 119 of 2003 filed by the first Respondent before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.). The appeal was taken up for hearing on 06.03.2019. The Appellant and its counsel were absent despite the appeal being posted under the caption of dismissal. Hence, the appeal was dismissed for non -prosecution by this Tribunal.
The Appellant thereafter filed M.A. on Diary No. 258/2021 for restoration of the appeal dismissed for default with a delay of 775 days. The present I.A. No.66 of 2021 is filed for condoning the delay in applying for restoration.
It is stated that the fact regarding the dismissal of the appeal came to the knowledge of the counsel appearing for the Appellant only during the 3rd week of March 2021. It is pointed out that from 19.06.2018 till 19.11.2018 no Chairperson was presiding in this Tribunal as a result of which the matters were being adjourned by Notification. When the matter was adjourned to 07.01.2019 it was not taken down in the diary by the advocate clerk as a result of which there was no appearance for the Appellant and the appeal happen to be posted under the caption of dismissal on 06.03.2019. The counsel for the Appellant was unaware of that date since the clerk had omitted to note the same in the diary. As there was no appearance for the Appellant on 06.03.2019, it resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. Being unaware of the dismissal of the appeal, the counsel for the Appellant remained under the impression that the appeal would be listed in due course. Thereafter, the pandemic struck during the month of March 2020 and the functioning of the Tribunal was disrupted. It was only during the third week of March 2021, the Appellant's counsel gathered the information that the appeal was dismissed for default on 06.03.2019. The counsel thereafter informed the officer of the Appellant updating him about the fate of the appeal and the course of action to be taken. Thereafter, the application was drafted and filed on 21.05.2021 causing a delay of 775 days. The delay is, therefore, sought to be condoned.
The first Respondent Bank has vehemently opposed the application for restoration of appeal stating that the Appellant cannot take advantage of the pandemic to get the delay condoned because the pandemic had struck more than a year after the dismissal of the appeal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also in SMW (C) No. 03 of 2020 directed to condone the delay in filing applications and appeals during the period starting March 2020 to June 2021.
The explanation given by the Appellant regarding the advocate clerk not noting down the dates resulting in the dismissal of the appeal is too flimsy a reason to be accepted for condoning the delay. Indeed, each day's delay need not be explained. But it is the duty of the Appellant, a Bank having a legal Department to take care of the matters pending before the courts and tribunals to follow up the matter and take appropriate action on time. The contention that the advocate clerk had failed to notice a particular date of posting is no reason for the Appellant and officer of the Bank to sit complacent for more than a year to get the appeal restored even if the period during the pandemic is to be excluded. The law does not come to the assistance who sleep over their rights. Hence, the application does not deserve to be allowed.
Resultantly, I. A. 66/2021 is found to be bereft of any merits and hence, dismissed.