Punjab National Bank v. Basil Resource Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Punjab National Bank

…Appellant

…Respondent

Case No: Appeal No. 71/2022

Date of Judgement: 05/06/2023

Judges:

Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Respondent: None.

Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

Punjab National Bank (Appellant) filed an appeal (Appeal No. 71/2022) before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (D.R.A.T.), Mumbai, aggrieved by the order dated 11/10/2017 in M.A. No. 51/2017 in O.A. (Lodging) No. 36/2016 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.). The impugned order dismissed the application for condoning the delay in filing the chamber appeal against the order of the Registrar declining to register the appeal for failing to cure the defects pointed out by the office. The Appellant had filed the aforesaid appeal on 11/02/2016, seeking to recover a sum of ₹11,54,10,672/- from the Defendants (Respondents). Certain defects were pointed out by the office, but those defects were not cured despite repeated opportunities being granted. On 29/08/2016, when the matter was taken up before the Ld. Registrar, there was no representation for the Appellant, and the defects pointed out in the application were not cured. The Ld. Registrar declined to register the original application. The Appellant contended that the junior advocate who was attending the matter had left the office in May 2016, and the files were not entrusted to anyone. It was only in May 2017 that the Appellant bank came to know about the non-registration of the application. A certified copy of the order of the Ld. Registrar was obtained on 25/05/2017. The chamber appeal was filed on 03/06/2017, with an application to condone the delay. The Ld. Presiding Officer, vide the impugned order dated 11/10/2017, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the technical ground that the number of days of delay had not been specified in the application, and it was not the job of the D.R.T. to calculate the number of days of delay. The Ld. Presiding Officer observed that the Tribunal was not inclined to consider such an ill-drafted application and resultantly dismissed the application together with the chamber appeal.

Arguments by the Appellant:

The Appellant contended that the registry could have marked the non-mentioning of the number of days of delay in the application as a defect and could have got that cured. It was also stated that the Appellant should not be penalized for the laches on the part of the advocate in drafting the application.

Importing the principles from these cases, the D.R.A.T. held that when even without a specific application for condonation of delay, the delay can be condoned, non-mentioning the number of days of delay is inconsequential.

Sections and Laws Referred:

Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Cases Cited:

Final Order:

The D.R.A.T. allowed the appeal filed by Punjab National Bank, subject to the payment of a cost of ₹25,000/- to the D.R.T. Bar Association, Mumbai, towards the purchase of books and periodicals, within a period of one week.

The impugned order dated 11/10/2017 in M.A. No. 51/2017 was set aside, and the chamber appeal at lodging No. 417 of 2017 was directed to be taken on file if there were no other defects to be cured.

The matter was posted before the Registrar for reporting compliance on 13.06.2023.