AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the I.A. No. 374/2025 for the delay condonation application.
Respondent No.2 present in person.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that there is a delay of 3 days in filing the present Appeal. It is further submitted that initially, an Advocate was entrusted with filing the Appeal and all requisite documents were provided to him; however, at a belated stage the Advocate informed the Appellant that he was out of station and therefore not in a position to file the Appeal. Consequently, the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Appellant Bank. The Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate.
The Respondent No. 2 present in person would submit that he also represents his wife who is Respondent No. 1 and vehemently opposes the condonation of delay on the ground that the Appellant has falsely represented before the RBI that the Appeal had already been filed.
Considering the submissions, this Tribunal is of the view that the objections raised by Respondent No. 2 involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Further, the delay is minimal and has been sufficiently explained.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 374/2025 is allowed and the delay of 3 days in filing the Appeal stands condoned.
List the matter on 24.06.2026 before the Learned Registrar for the necessary steps