CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2023) 12 DRAT CK 0016

Rajendra C. Tiwari vs State Bank of India & Ors

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 5 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 93 Of 2023 (CoD) In M.A. on Diary No. 525 Of 2022 (Restoration) In (Appeal No. 180 Of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 342 words

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

1.

The Interim Application (I.A.) No. 93/2023 is an application for condoning the delay in applying to restore Miscellaneous Application No. 1363/2017 in Miscellaneous Application at Lodging No. 536/2017 in Appeal No. 180/2011. The matter has a checkered history. The Appellant/Applicant had filed the aforesaid Appeal No. 180/2011 challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the S.A. which was filed by him.

2.

The appeal was dismissed for default on 25.09.2017. Thereafter, the Appellant filed M.A. No. 1363/2017 for condonation of delay in filing restoration of the appeal as M.A. at Lodging No. 536/2017. There was no representation again which resulted in the dismissal of the two applications on 09.01.2020.

3.

The Appellant woke from his slumber and filed the present application I.A. No. 93/2023 to get the M.A. No. 1363/2017 in M.A. at Lodging No. 536/2017 was restored to file. There is a delay of 914 days in filing the application consequence of the dismissal of the application for the restoration of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed even before that for which there is already a condonation delay application filed by the Appellant.

4.

The Appellant has pleaded that he was not able to contact his lawyer and because of the non-communication resulted in the dismissal of the appeal and also the dismissal of the application for restoration of the appeal after condoning the delay. The Appellant has challenged the order of the D.R.T. and it was, therefore, incumbent upon him to contact his lawyer and give specific instructions. There is an unreasonable and unexplained delay of 914 days in filing this application for condonation of delay. It would be injustice to the parties on the opposite side to condone such an unreasonable delay and to condone the delay to restore the application for restoration of the appeal and the application for condonation of delay in applying to restore the appeal. The Applicant/Appellant has not been vigilant and therefore, by no means can the unreasonable and unexplained delay be condoned.

The Application is, therefore, dismissed.