NEERMALI DAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order dated 29. 04. 03, passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereafter referred to as Appellate Tribunal), in Misc. Case No. DRAT/cal/20/2002/385, condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter referred to as a Act) against the judgment and order dated 14. 06. 02 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 70 of 1998. By the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal also admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the judgment and order appealed against.

(2.) I have heard Mr. CK Sarma Baruah, senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. B. Kalita, Advocate for the respondent No. 1, State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank ).

(3.) THE facts in brief, leading to the filing of the instant petition deserve to be noted at the out set. The respondent No. 1, filed Title Suit No. 144 of 1986 (later T. S. No. 74 of 1991), in the Court of A. D. J. No. 1, Guwahati, against the petitioners claiming inter alia a decree for releasing an amount of Rs. 14,61,218. 44. After the passing of the Act, the said suit stood transferred to the Tribunal, whereafter it was registered as O. A. No. 70 of 1998. The learned Tribunal on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the other materials on record, vide judgment and order dated 14. 06. 2002 dismissed the application holding that the applicant Bank had failed to establish its claim. A belated appeal was filed on 10. 10. 2002, by the Bank, before the Appellate Tribunal with an application for, condonation of delay as envisaged under Section 20 (3) of the Act, 1993. On receipt of the notice of the application, the petitioners filed their written objection and eventually by the impugned order dated 29. 04. 03, the learned Appellate Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal as aforesaid. On the aspect of delay and the explanation offered, the learned Appellate Tribunal observed thus :-"i have perused the petition, the affidavit-in-opposition, and I have heard the advocates for the parties. The grounds set out in the petition for condonation of delay are less than convincing. However in the interest of justice, I am of the view that the appeal should be heard".