Shalu Agriculture Enterprises & Anr vs State Bank of India

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

Heard the learned counsels for the parties on the issue of limitation.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna was challenged by filing the present appeal, which has been dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2019 for want of prosecution.

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that when the applicant came to know about the order of dismissal of the present appeal, he was already suffering from hepatitis-C and other ailments and as per advice of his Doctor namely S. Nishat Ahmad, he remained on bed rest from 03.07.2019 to 08.09.2020. The copy of the medical certificate has been appended as annexure no. 1 to the delay condonation application.

The learned counsel for the applicant also submits that as the applicant had lost the contact number and office address of his counsel, therefore, he could not contact his counsel and thereafter, due to lockdown of entire country on account of pandemic of Covid-19, nothing could be done. The learned counsel further submits that when the appellant reached the office of DRAT, Allahabad on 17.12.2020 and got the contact number of his counsel, then he met with his counsel on the same day and thereafter, the present restoration application was filed, hence it cannot be said that the delay occurred in filing the present application is deliberate or intentional because it was on account of the applicant’s ailment and bad situation of pandemic of covid-19. It is therefore prayed that the restoration application may be allowed by condoning the delay occurred in filing the same, hence the appeal may be restored and heard on merits.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has filed his objection to the restoration application and has argued that the restoration application has been filed by the applicant after a delay of 485 days from the date of order of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The learned counsel further submits that even the statutory requirement of 50% of the amount due has not been fulfilled by the appellant till date. The learned counsel also submits that the pandemic of Covid-19 had spread in India very late at the end of March 2020 and there is no explanation prior to that, as to what steps were taken by him to recall the order by which the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. It is further contended that the ailment as alleged by the applicant is not supported by any evidence and even the delay in filing the application after receiving the order, though Covid-19 spread in the end of march 2020 and before that, the functioning of whole nation as well as courts or Tribunals was normal, hence the delay was deliberate and intentional. It is next contended that the contention of the appellant that he had lost the contact number and address of office of his counsel is an afterthought and has been made solely to make out a ground to get the restoration application allowed and to get the delay of 485 days in filing the same condoned as the same has not been explained properly and the said liability cannot be ignored or passed on the learned counsel for the applicant without there being any cogent reason/documents. Hence the said allegation cannot be taken into consideration for condoning such extraordinary delay. It is therefore prayed that the application for condonation of delay may be rejected and the restoration application also.

After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the reasons as stated in the application for condonation of delay are not proper and sufficient to condone the delay of 485 days. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the restoration application also.