Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rajkumar, N.Ramesh, and R.Amutha, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, challenging an order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in AIR No.236 of 2021. The respondent, DBS Bank India Ltd., had filed an original application in O.A.No.390 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Madurai, for recovery of Rs.18,73,807.75 with interest. The petitioners were set ex-parte on 21.11.2014, and final orders were passed on 15.12.2017. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1929 of 2018 to condone a delay of 199 days in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was dismissed by the DRT on 19.03.2020 on the ground that there were no convincing reasons and recovery proceedings had already been initiated. Against this rejection, the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, along with an interlocutory application under Section 20(3) of the Act (I.A.No.31 of 2022) seeking condonation of a further delay of 614 days in filing the appeal. The DRAT dismissed the condonation application and consequently the appeal on 28.11.2024. The only reasons assigned for the delay were that the petitioners were not aware when their account was classified as NPA and that their advocate was unable to appear before the DRT. The High Court, after perusing the affidavit, found that the petitioners had entered appearance through their advocate in the main original application and that the reasons given were vague and insufficient. The Court held that the delay of 614 days was inordinate and the petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the DRAT was upheld.
Headnote
A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 20(3) of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - The petitioners sought condonation of 614 days delay in filing appeal against order dismissing their application to set aside ex-parte decree - The only reasons given were unawareness of NPA classification and advocate's inability to appear - The Court held that such vague and insufficient reasons do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay - The writ petition was dismissed (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the condonation of delay application for a delay of 614 days in filing the appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No.31 of 2022 of AIR No.236 of 2021 was upheld. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Inordinate delay
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- 1993
- Section 20(3)
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 363
W.P.(MD)No.326 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.220 of 2025
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
Mr.M.Saravanakumar (for petitioners), Mr.S.I.Muthiah (for respondent)
Rajkumar, N.Ramesh, R.Amutha
The DBS Bank India Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Trichy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissing a condonation of delay application.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in I.A.No.31 of 2022 of AIR No.236 of 2021.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the DRAT order that dismissed their application to condone a 614-day delay in filing an appeal against the DRT order rejecting their application to set aside an ex-parte decree.
Previous Decisions
The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, had dismissed the petitioners' application to condone a 199-day delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order on 19.03.2020. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the condonation of delay application for 614 days on 28.11.2024.
Issues
Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the condonation of delay application for a delay of 614 days in filing the appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that they were not aware when their account was classified as NPA and that their advocate was unable to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which caused the delay.
The respondent Bank opposed the condonation, contending that the reasons were vague and insufficient, and the delay was inordinate.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the reasons assigned by the petitioners for the delay of 614 days, namely unawareness of NPA classification and advocate's inability to appear, were vague and insufficient to constitute 'sufficient cause' for condonation of such an inordinate delay. The court emphasized that the petitioners had entered appearance through their advocate in the main original application and failed to provide any cogent explanation for the delay.
Judgment Excerpts
The only reason assigned before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the application in I.A.No.31 of 2022, for the delay is that the petitioners herein were not aware when their account was classified as NPA and that their advocate was unable to appear before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application reveals that the petitioners had entered appearance through their Advocate in the main Original Application No.390 of 2013 and thereafter, they had not taken any steps.
The reasons assigned by the petitioners for the delay of 614 days are vague and insufficient to condone such an inordinate delay.
Procedural History
The respondent Bank filed O.A.No.390 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, for recovery of a sum. The petitioners were set ex-parte on 21.11.2014, and final orders were passed on 15.12.2017. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1929 of 2018 to condone a 199-day delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was dismissed on 19.03.2020. The petitioners then filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, along with I.A.No.31 of 2022 to condone a 614-day delay in filing the appeal. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the condonation application on 28.11.2024. The petitioners challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: 20, 20(3)
- Limitation Act, 1963: 5
