P RAGINI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this petition has sought for quashing the impugned order dated 9th May, 2008 passed by the Debts Recovery tribunal at Bangalore on I. A. No. 436/2005 in i. R. No. 13/2005 under Annexure A and to direct the Debts Recovery Tribunal to condone the delay, if any and direct the Debts Recovery tribunal to proceed further in I. R. No. 13 of 2005 in disposing the same on merits.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner herein had earlier filed W. P. No. 3259/2004 assailing the correctness of the notice dated 6th December, 2003 issued by the second respondent herein vide Annexure d therein. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before this Court on 14th october, 2004 and the writ petition filed by petitioner stood disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to avail the other remedies with an observation that if any appeal is filed by petitioner before the competent authority, the same shall not be rejected on the ground of delay since the petitioner was pursuing her remedy before this Court. A copy of the said order is produced as Annexure B to the writ petition. After disposal of the said writ petition, petitioner has filed the application I. A. No. 436/2005 dated 5th January, 2005 for condoning the delay in filing the I. R. No. 13/2005. The said application filed under S. 17 (1)of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter called "sarfaesi Act, 2002") read with S. 5 of the Limitation Act had come up for consideration before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, bangalore ("tribunal" for short) on 9th May, 2008. The Tribunal after hearing both parties dismissed the said application holding that, there is a delay of around one year for which there is no explanation coming forth from the side of the petitioner in spite of stating that he proceeded the papers to the Advocate and delay occurred while preparing the appeal cannot be believable. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to offer sufficient cause for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal for disposing the writ petition before this Court and dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the tribunal, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present this petition seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.