Punjab National Bank

Heard the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘Bank’ in IA Nos. 969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975 & 976 / 2023 (Condone Delay Applications).

According to the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘Bank’, in all these ‘Interlocutory Applications’, the ‘reasons’ ascribed on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, in preferring an ‘Appeal’, within the period of 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the ‘Order’, are that, there was a ‘delay in preparing and finalising the ‘Appeal’, due to fact that the key staff members of the Appellant, handling the case, proceeded on Leave on ‘Medical Grounds and ‘Administrative Reasons’. In this process, there has occasioned a delay of 13 days in preferring these ‘Appeals’. As such, the said delay is neither ‘wilful’ nor wanton, but due to the aforesaid reason(s).

In view of the fact, that these ‘Appeals’ were filed, before the ‘Office of the Registry’ with a delay of 13 days, and the reasons ascribed on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’ / ‘Bank’, in these Interlocutory Applications are one of the ‘Administrative Reasons’, this ‘Tribunal’, also bearing in mind, that the ‘delay of 13 days’, is well within outer limit of [30+15=45 days, as per Section 61 of the Code], the instant ‘Appeals’, being preferred (after the expiry of 30 days), this ‘Tribunal’, by taking a lenient and liberal view, condones the delay of 13 days and resultantly, ‘allows’ IA Nos.969, 970, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975 & 976/2023 in Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318 & 319/2023, to secure the ends of Justice.

After hearing the arguments of the Learned Counsel Mr. Varun Srinivasan, appearing for the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Bank’, in all these ‘Appeals’, (For quite some time) this ‘Tribunal’ is of the considered view, that the ‘imposition’ of the ‘Conditional Order’ passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’ pertaining, to the payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-, for ‘each Application’, to be paid by the ‘Petitioner’ / ‘Appellant’, (in the applications) to the ‘Prime Minister’s Relief Fund’, at this stage, simpliciter, ‘prima facie’, is slightly on the ‘exorbitant’, ‘excessive, and on the ‘Higher side’. After all, when the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’, ‘orders’ the imposition of the payment of cost, in each of the Applications, to the ‘Prime Minister’s Relief Fund’, Rs.25,000/- each, it is to exercise its ‘sound judicial discretion’ and the same should not be in an ‘arbitrary, fanciful, capricious’ manner, in the considered opinion of this Appellate Tribunal.

However, this Tribunal, without traversing on the merits of the matter, on the basis of ‘facts and circumstances of the instant’ ‘Appeals’ which float on the surface, and on perusing the impugned orders passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/ ‘Tribunal’ and added further, by applying a prudent, ‘thinking judicial subjective discretion’, saddles the ‘Appellants’, to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/-aggregating in all, (in all ‘these Appeals’), to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund, and directs the ‘Appellants’ to pay the same, within 10 days time period from today (27.09.2023), and the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, should produce ‘Copy of Receipt’ (‘proof of payment’) before the ‘Deputy Registrar’ of the ‘National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’, Chennai Bench, (without fail), for the purpose of keeping the same as ‘part and parcel of Records’, of these ‘Appeals’, for favour of ready reference by this ‘Tribunal’, in case, of any need arising thereto.

With the aforesaid observations, / directions, the instant Comp App (AT) (CH) (Ins) Nos. 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318 & 319/2023, stand ‘disposed of’. No costs.