S S L INDIA LTD Vs. UCO BANK
LAWS(DR)-2003-3-4
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 06,2003

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, - (1.)THIS is an application under Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act') for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal has been presented against the order dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-11, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRT'), declining the prayer of the applicants/appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellants/defendants) to set said the order dated 18.2.1998 setting them ex parte and the final order dated 27.8.1998 passed in O.A. 418/97. The appeal has been presented on 23.11.2001, apparently after 45 days prescribed by this section. The respondent-Bank has filed suitable reply opposing this application.
(2.)I have heard the Counsel for both the sides, and perused the records.
As is seen from the impugned order, the appellants/defendants were set exparte on 18.2.1998, and the final order was passed on 27.8.1998. The impugned order was passed on 6.7.2001, and the appeal, as already pointed out, has been filed only on 23.11.2001. The reason given in the present application is that the copy of the impugned order dated 6.7.2001 was actually received by the appellants/defendants on 1.11.2001. It has been averred in the application that Mr. Brijesh Kumar, clerk of the Counsel for the appellants/defendants had applied for certified copy of the order as per Slip No. 1291 dated 10.7.2001, made various visits to the Registry of the DRT for a period of two months to get the copy but, he could not get the same, and in the meantime he had also missed the above said slip, which could not be traced. It has also been urged that he again applied for the copy of the order on 11.10.2001, got the copy on 1.11.2001, that the delay is due to bona fide reason, and was not deliberate.

(3.)IN reply, the respondent has stated that the appellants/defendants or their Advocate or the clerk of the Counsel did not apply for the certified copy on 10.7.2001, and therefore, there was no question of missing the slip in respect of the same, but, the copy application was made for the first time by Mr. Vivek Sharma, the Counsel for the appellants/defendants in the DRT on 11.10.2001 only (Diary No. 1291), and the certified copy was also collected by him on 21.11.2001. Respondent has further urged that the certified copy as per slip No. 1291 was applied for only on 11.10.2001, as is seen from endorsement made by the DRT on the certified copy of the impugned order. Therefore, the respondent has urged that the ground pleaded is neither reasonable nor sufficient, but patently false, exhibiting gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellants/defendants to prosecute the matter.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.