AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
This is an application filed by the 1st Appellant, a Multi-State co-operative bank named the Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd., seeking to condone 198 days delay in filing the appeal which impugns order dated 27/06/2019 in Securitisation Application No. 129 of 2019 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai.
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the aforementioned order wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer passed an order directing the secured assets to be handed over to the Appellants and also directed the future interest to be frozen with effect from the date of handing over of possession. The Appellants are aggrieved by that order since it will result in severe damage to them by way of loss of interest. Hence this appeal.
The Appellant bank had come under financial stress during the middle of 2014 and the reserve bank of India superseded the Board of the Appellant bank on 19/06/2014 and appointed an administrator under section 36 AAA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1947. The administrator continued to manage the business of the Appellant bank till 11/06/2019 when the RBI appointed a new Board for the bank. The newly appointed board took over the management control of the bank and decided to appoint a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with effect from 01/12/2019. The newly appointed CEO conducted scrutiny of the cases pending against and filed by the bank and came across the impugned order dated 27/06/2019. It was realized that the matter was not being attended to which caused much prejudice to the interest of the bank. As a result of the administrative delay, the appeal could be filed only after 198 days. There was no deliberate laches on the part of the Appellants in delaying the appeal. They also did not stand to gain anything from the delay. No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Respondents by condoning the delay. And hence, the Appellants spray that the application may be allowed.
The Respondents have filed a reply to this application for condonation of delay stating that the Respondents had filed an interlocutory application in the securitization application in which the Ld. Presiding Officer had directed the Appellants to take possession of the subject flat No. 401 and accordingly, the Respondents undertook to and/or possession of the said Flat to the Appellants. The Respondents had agreed to deposit a sum of ₹45,000,000/-in settlement of the debt. The property was valued and the market value was assessed as ₹70,200,000/-the realizable value at ₹63,180,000/-and the distress value was assessed at ₹56,160,000/-the Appellants had insisted on not accepting the offer to settle the debt in view of the higher value of the property. The Appellants submitted that Flat No. 401 would fetch a sum of ₹70,200,000/- while they had a buyer for the other asset namely plot No. 131 for a sum of ₹29,464,000/-. The Appellants insisted that they would not sell the property below the aforesaid distress value. However, the Appellants were unable to produce the proposed buyers, and in view of the fact that the interest was accruing, the Ld. Presiding Officer passed the impugned order directing the Respondents to hand over possession of the flat to the Appellants and froze the interest as the Appellants were insisting on not selling the flat below the reserve price of ₹56,160,000/-
The Respondents contend that the intention of the Appellant bank is only to delay the proceedings. The Appellants have failed to justify the delay in filing the appeal and therefore the application is to be dismissed with costs.
The word ‘sufficient cause’ used in section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be liberally interpreted so as to advance the interests of justice. The Appellants have explained that the reserve bank of India had intervened in the appointment of a new Board for the administration of the bank and that is the reason why there was a delay in taking decisions. According to me, it is a sufficient reason for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In the State of Bihar & Ors. V/s Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Ano. (2000) 9 SCC 94 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power to condone the delay in approaching the court has been conferred upon the courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits. In an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition V/s Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 it was observed that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in the meaningful manner which subserves the end of justice.
Taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration the application for condonation of delay of 198 days is condoned and the appeal shall be taken on file in case there are no other defects to be cured.
Post before the registrar on 24.11.2022 for compliance.