NABARUN BHATTACHARYYA Vs. KOTAK MOHINDRA BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of rejection of the application for condonation of delay of 7 years 11 months and 19 days by the guarantor petitioner in preferring an appeal against the order dated 29th July, 2003 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT) in O.A. No.131 of 2001 is the subject-matter of challenge in this revisional application.

(2.) THE learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "DRAT ") rejected the said application observing that the explanation and reason given for delay does not inspire the confidence of the Tribunal. THE petitioners are the guarantors. THE petitioners duly contested the original recovery proceeding initiated under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "RDB " Act). THE certificate was issued on 6th August, 2003. Immediately thereafter execution proceeding was initiated. A period little short of three years from the date of issuance of certificate, the guarantors on April 5, 2006 filed an application before the learned Recovery Officer contending that the said Officer has no jurisdiction to execute the said certificate. Subsequently, on 13th July, 2006, the petitioners took out another inter alia application before the learned Presiding Officer under Section 19(25) of the RDB Act praying, inter alia, for an order of injunction restraining the Recovery Officer from proceeding with the execution of the certificate. On 20th March, 2007, the petitioners applied before the Recovery Officer questioning its jurisdiction to proceed against one of the properties which is situated at Jharkhand.

(3.) THE petitioners submitted that unless the petitioners are allowed to contest the said appeal, the petitioners would be prevented from raising such questions and there are arguable points which are required to be considered and decided on merits. THE proposed grounds of challenge if they are allowed to prefer an appeal different from the grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) pending before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. THE subject matter of SLP and the subject matter of challenge in the appeal are different.