State Bank Of India vs Nivrutti Haribhau Tupe And Ors

A. Arumughaswamy, J

This appeal is filed by the appellant/original respondent No. 1 against the order dated 13th August, 2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Aurangabad whereby the learned Presiding Officer allowed the M.A. No. 23/2013 filed by the original applicant/respondent No. 1 herein for condonation of delay. Thereafter the appeal has been preferred by the Bank before this Tribunal on 11th November, 2013. The matter has been prolonging before the Registrar for numbering the appeal and the Registry was given a task of calling upon the appellant to rectify the defects shown in the appeal memo that went on continuously up to 10th July, 2014. Thereafter the appeal has been taken up before this Court for hearing.

Now the Counsel appearing for the appellant represents that the matter has been already reserved for orders before D.R.T. and he prayed for some more time.

Under this juncture, this Court has been called upon to explain this effect with narrating all these events with heavy heart. This Court is warned the particular Branch Manager for filing this type of appeal at the cost of public money and harass the Court by prolonging this issue. But this Court can come to only one conclusion about the Bank officials in filing these type of name sake appeals to blame the Court by throwing an appeal memo before the Registry without attending the same for a year.

Therefore, I am of the view that, in this case the concerned Bank official has to be dealt with by this Court by giving strong message to them. Therefore, filing these types of appeals only lead to wasting the litigant's time, this Court is of the view to impose the costs on the Bank.

On the verification, it is seen that the borrower has filed the securitization application along with delay, that application was allowed by the D.R.T. on 13th August, 2013. Thereafter the Bank has filed defective appeal before this Court on 11th November, 2013, thereafter Registrar has adjourned the matter for compliance for more than eighteen times, even thereafter the appellant has not complied with the defects. Thereafter only the appellant has removed the objections. The matter has been protracted by the Bank itself for obvious reasons. Once the appellant has chosen to filed an appeal and for removal of the objections/queries, the Bank has taken time of six long months, by this time the S.A. application itself reserved for orders before D.R.T. Therefore, I am of the view that the costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) has to be imposed on the appellant Bank. The appellant Bank is directed to deposit the costs before the Registrar, D.R.A.T., Mumbai, within ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.