DARMESH MADHUSOODAN THAKKAR Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(DR)-2007-3-1
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 19,2007

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.Gnanaprakasam, - (1.) THIS is an application to condone the delay of 1652 days in filing the appeal. I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the 1st respondent Bank.
(2.) The petitioner in the affidavit has stated that he was a minor at the time when he was admitted in the 1st defendant's Firm as a partner, and on attaining majority, the petitioner did not want to continue as a partner, and given a letter on 31.3.1993, to the 1st defendant firm, and thereupon, the partnership firm was reconstituted from 1.4.1993. It is also stated that the Managing Partner of the 1st defendant Firm has given a letter on 8.5.1993, that the petitioner/appellant ceased to be the partner of the 1st defendant firm. The petitioner/appellant further stated that the entire proceedings before the DRT was conducted by his father for and on his behalf, and even the written statement was singed by him while he was out of station. The appellant, therefore, pleads ignorance of the proceedings. The petitioner further stated that one of his Keralite friend had telephoned to him that he had seen some publication in Malayala Manorama daily, dated 11.9.2005, which is pertaining to the petitioner, in connection with the case in DRT, and thereafter, the petitioner made various efforts to collect the details about the case in the 3rd week of October, 2005, and he had also contacted one Advocate by name Mr. Abi Antony, at Kerala, and requested him to do the needful. It is stated that he got the certified copy of the Order, but he could not get certified copies of certain other documents, and only in the said circumstances, he could not file the appeal in time. It is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wonton. The respondent Bank opposed the petition by filing its counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the respondent Bank was not aware of the letter, alleged to have been written by the petitioner, on 31.3.1993, and no letter was produced before the DRT, nor the same was pleaded in the written statement filed by the petitioner. It is stated that alleged letter is a fabricated one. It is further stated that the petitioner having received the summons and filed the written statement, it is his look out to follow up with the matter. It is also stated that the final order was also despatched to the petitioner to his address at Mumbai. The claim of the petitioner that his father would take care of his proceedings and he did not inform the same, cannot at all be believed. The petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order on 18.11.2005 but, whereas he has filed the appeal only on 24.4.2006, and even after the receipt of the certified copy, the petitioner/appellant has not chosen to file the appeal in time. The petitioner/appellant has not stated anything about the receipt of the free copy in 2001, itself. The respondent further stated that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are all fabricated one.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner/appellant is a partner in the 1st defendant partnership firm. The petitioner/appellant has admitted that he was in receipt of the summons and also taken part in the proceedings and filed the written statement. But, however, it is stated that the written statement was filed through his father and his father was taking care of his case. The petitioner/appellant contends that he had relinquished from the partnership firm and also sent a letter dated 31.3.1993. ADMITTEDLY, no such letter was sent to the respondent Bank. Even if any such letter has been sent to the 1st defendant company, it is the internal affairs between the appellant and the company, and the same is not binding upon the respondent Bank.;


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