- (1.) THIS is an application moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The present appeal has been preferred against an order dated 11th november, 2005 passed by the D. R. T. , Lucknow in Appeal No. 4/05 upholding the order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar, D. R. T. , allahabad, who held that the appeal moved under section 17 of the securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly stated as S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act in this order) in the light of objections raised by office was liable to be rejected. The present applicants had preferred an appeal under section 17 of the S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act, 2002 and the office of the D. R. T. , Lucknow found the defects in the above appeal. The present applicants contested with regard to the defects in the above appeal. The present applicants contested with regard to the defects raised by the office and consequently the Assistant Registrar, D. R. T. , Lucknow passed an order dated 6th May, 2005 holding that the appeal moved under section 17 was also barred by limitation. Against this order of the Assistant Registrar, the present applicants preferred Appeal No. 4/2005 before the D. R. T. Lucknow and the D. R. T. upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar and feeling aggrieved with this order of D. R. T. , Lucknow, the present appeal has been preferred along with an application moved under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) THE applicants have pleaded in their present application under section 5 of the limitation Act that the present appeal has been preferred under section 20 of the r. D. D. B. F. I. Act, 1993 read with section 18 of the S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act, 2002 against the order dated llth November, 2005 passed by the D. R. T. , lucknow. According to the applicants, the first certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Counsel of the applicants at Lucknow on 16th november, 2005 and he sent that copy to the office of applicant company at new Delhi by courier on 18th November, 2005 and it was received there on 21st november, 2005. After the receipt of the said copy of impugned order, it was sent to the office of the Director of the applicant-company on 22nd November, 2005 for further action and on consultation with the Board of Directors of the company on 30th November, 2005 the Counsel for the applicants at new Delhi was consulted for further legal course of action. On 10th December, 2005 the counsel at New Delhi advised that against the impugned order, appeal under section 18 of the Seeuritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and enforcement of Security Interest Act i. e. S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act, 2002 would lie at appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, accordingly a draft of the appeal under section 18 of the S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act was prepared on 15th December, 2005 and the same was sent to the Counsel at Lucknow for his perusal and advice. On 18th december, 2005 the Counsel at Lucknow after going through that draft gave an opinion that the appeal under section 20 of the R. E,d,b. F. I. Act, 1993 Act would lie to the Appellate Tribunal and not an appeal under section 18 of the s. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act. According to the applicant-company thereafter Counsel for the applicants at New Delhi was not available due to winter vacation and he was available, he could be consulted only on 28th December, 200s and thereafter it was found that certified copy of the impugned order dated 11th november, 2005, which was sent to the Counsel for the legal advice, was misplaced somewhere and could not be traced out in the office of the Counsel. Then on 29th December, 2005 Counsel at Lucknow was instructed to obtain another certified copy of the impugned order to send the same immediately to Delhi. Counsel at Lucknow on 30th December, 2005 moved an application for another certified copy and it was prepared on 2nd January, 2006 and was received by the counsel at Lucknow on 4th January, 2006. Thereafter it was sent to New Delhi, where it was received on 6th January, 2006. In the meantime, Counsel for the applicants at Lucknow and Delhi after having telephonic conferencing on 4th january, 2006 concluded that against the impugned order dated llth November, 2005, appeal under section 20 of the R. D. D. B. F. I. Act, 1993 Act read with section 18 of the S. R. F. A. E. S. I. Act should be prepared and filed. On the basis of above conclusion, a new draft of appeal was drafted and prepared by the counsel at New Delhi and was sent to his counterpart at Lucknow for further action. According to the applicants, thereafter Counsel at Lucknow remained busy in connection with the preparations of marriage of his brother and only on 21st January, 2006 after incorporating certain modifications in the draft he sent back the same to Delhi on 22nd January, 2006 and after receiving the same, the counsel for applicants at Delhi returned it for filing to his counter-part at lucknow, who received the same on 30th January, 2006 and thereafter it was filed. The contention from the side of the applicants is that in view of above facts and circumstances, there was no delay in filing the appeal due to any carelessness or fault on part of the applicants, therefore, in the light of above explanations, the delay should be condoned. The appeal has been filed on 20th february, 2006 with an application for condonation of delay, which is supported with an affidavit of Shyam Sunder Verma, Director of the applicant-company.
(3.) THE above application for condonation of delay is opposed from the side of the respondent bank by filing objection against this application. The bank has mentioned in its objection that the period of limitation provided for filing the appeal had already expired and applicant has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay. According to the bank, even the names of the Counsels, who were being consulted at Lucknow and Delhi, have not been given by the applicant for the reasons best known to the applicant-company. According to the case of the bank, the total delay in filing the appeal is more than of fifty-five days, which remains unexplained. The bank has also pleaded that the property, which has been contested by the applicant, has already been sold and auctioned under the provisions of the S. R. F. A. E. S. I. . Act, 2002 and the purchaser has already been handed over the possession, therefore, the present application/appeal is devoid of any force.;