SEBASTIAN CHOKKATTU Vs. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment we dispose of three connected writ appeals bearing Nos. 1564 of 2004, 1672 of 2004 and 1674 of 2004. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties also suggest likewise.

(2.) These writ appeals need to be disposed of while keeping in mind two settled judicial norms, namely that as far as possible a citizen is entitled to have decision of his cause on merits, and that unless his conduct may be contumacious and the grounds pleaded be wholly insufficient or patently false, the delay in bringing about a cause should normally be condoned.

(3.) The appellant, petitioner in the original Us, was a guarantor of the loan availed by a Company from the Industrial Development Bank of India. The Company was later liquidated and its entire assets were taken over by the official liquidator. The first respondent Bank however initiated proceedings for realisation of the amount of Rs. 5,27,86,994.50 together with interest thereon by filing an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. The matter was contested by the appellant on various grounds inclusive of that the transactions were not commercial in nature and therefore the rate of interest claimed by the first respondent was exorbitant. The matter on contest, however, resulted in an order in favour of the first respondent Bank and against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Debt. Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Inasmuch as the same was barred by limitation, in one case by a period of 570 days, another 190 days and yet another 144 days, he filed application for condonation of delay. Accompanying the application aforesaid an affidavit was filed by the appellant, paragraph 2 whereof, reads as follows: