Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd vs M/s. Everest Mineral Water & Ors.

This Application is filed to condone the delay of 1683 days in filing the Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant Bank submitted that Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai passed final order in OA 625/2014 on 15.10.2020. The Learned Presiding Officer based on the Memo filed by the Defendant No.2 dated 09.10.2020 stating that “pursuant to orders of National Green Tribunal his company was closed and business also came to stand still. Defendants have already remitted the principal amount of Rs.15 lakhs and in respect of interest portion, they are not in a position to pay the dues as they are eking their livelihood based on agricultural activities only, and prayed for passing necessary orders.”

Based on this order, Learned Presiding Officer denied interest in view of the circumstances beyond the control of Defendants, probably, on the basis of the Memo filed. It is submitted by Leaned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant that denial of the pendete lite and future interest on the basis of the aforesaid Memo filed, is not correct, and is contrary to the settled principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court on awarding pendente lite and future interest.

He further submitted that the Counsel, who had handled the case before DRT-III, Chennai, had expired and that is the main reason for the delay in filing the Appeal. After receipt of the copy of the order on 22.05.2025, this Appeal was filed with an Application to condone the delay of 1683 days in filing the Appeal.

In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that the Counsel on record had expired on 28.05.2023. It is further submitted that the free copy of the order passed in OA 625/2014 had been supplied to the Petitioner/Appellant on 09.11.2020. Therefore, the contention that this Appeal was filed after receipt of the copy of the order on 22.05.2025 and that the delay was occasioned due to death of the Counsel on record who had appeared before the DRT, cannot be accepted.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

This Tribunal finds from the impugned order that the Learned Presiding Officer denied the pendente lite and future interest solely on the basis of the Memo filed by the Defendant No.2, as narrated above. Obviously, this may not be a legal ground for the Tribunal for completely denying pendente lite and future interest. The Tribunal could have reduced the pendente lite and future interest. Complete denial of pendente lite and future interest is not correct, particularly, in the suit filed for recovery of money.

Though the Petitioner/Appellant has merits in the Appeal, this Tribunal finds that the Application seeking to condone the delay of 1683 days in filing the Appeal is not supported by any sufficient or acceptable reasons. The Counsel, who handed the case before DRT expired on 28.05.2023, and therefore, this circumstance alone, cannot be the sufficient and valid reason to condone the huge delay of 1683 days in filing the Appeal. The free copy of the order was supplied on 09.11.2020, which shows that the Petitioner/Appellant was aware of the adverse order passed on the matter of interest, immediately on disposal of the Original Application. Despite that, the Petitioner/Appellant failed to act with due diligence and did not file the Appeal in time.

In this view of the matter, this Tribunal is of the view that no sufficient ground has been made out to condone the delay of 1683 days in filing the Appeal. Accordingly, this IA is liable to the dismissed.

Before parting with, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to record that though the pendente lite and future interest was denied, there is an order for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,75,538/-. There is also a direction to give credit to the payments made during the pendency of Original Application or later. As per the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and 2, it is seen that the payment was made in five instalments, as detailed below:-

Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any Appeal. When they have not filed any Appeal, it is expected that they are bound to pay the amount as ordered by the Tribunal within a reasonable time, preferably, before the expiry of the Appeal period.

The Respondents cannot take five years to pay the amount as ordered by the Tribunal. Therefore, they cannot be absolved of liability for delayed payment of Rs.12,75,538/-. Therefore, the Appellant is at liberty to approach the DRT for appropriate action including the claim of interest for the delayed payment of Rs.12,75,538/-.

Accordingly, the Application in IA 1743/2025 is dismissed and the Appeal in A.IR:1411/2025 is rejected. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.