Back
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Gadekar Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank Through its Authorized Officer – Respondent
Key Points: - The application for condonation of delay must be decided before imposing any deposit requirements under relevant statutes (!) . - The mandate of Section 154(2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not apply to an application for condonation of delay (!) . - The statutory scheme of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act applies after the Revisional Authority takes up the Revision for decision, and the revision is not to be entertained until the delay is condoned (!) . - The word "entertain" in legal contexts means to deal with or admit to consideration, not merely receiving or filing (!) . - Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act states that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited fifty percent of the amount of debt due (!) . - The stage of depositing a prescribed amount as a pre-condition for entertaining a substantive proceeding does not apply to dealing with applications for condonation of delay (!) . - The DRAT's order requiring a 50% deposit for entertaining the delay application was improper because the primary issue was the condonation of delay, which must be resolved first (!) (!) . - The writ petition was allowed, and the DRAT's order to deposit 50% was quashed and set aside (!) . - The proceedings were remitted to the DRAT to consider whether the DRT's order refusing to condone the delay was sustainable (!) (!) . - The petitioners had already deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- with the DRAT, which shall be subject to the final result of the proceedings (!) .None
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time, in the light of the pleadings before the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘DRAT’), it is obvious that the pleadings and the submissions of the parties before the learned DRAT, were in a tangent. The short issue before the learned DRAT was as to whether the order of the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘DRT’) dated 05.07.2022 in Diary No.453/2020, rejecting the interlocutory application No.424/2020 seeking condonation of delay, was legal and proper. The parties addressed the DRAT on the point of depositing 50 % amount, as a pre-condition for entertaining the Application for Condonation of Delay.
3. This Court [Coram : S.A.Bobde (as his Lordship then was), J.] held in Dilawar Hakim Shah Versus Special Recovery Officer and Others [2006(3) Mh.L.J.256] that in the matter of condonation of delay along with a statutory appeal / revision, the Revisional Authority u/s 154 (2A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, has to deal with the only issue of condonat
The court established that the application for condonation of delay must be decided before imposing any deposit requirements under relevant statutes.
Point of Law : It is only after that application is allowed, appeal can be entertained and heard on merits.
The court emphasized that extraordinary delays in appeal require strict scrutiny, asserting that sufficient cause must be demonstrated to justify condonation, balancing justice with the rights accrue....
The 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the DRT due to lack of inherent power.
Condonation of extraordinary delay requires proper explanation; courts must balance substantial justice against accrued rights and ensure genuine reasons are provided.
The court affirmed that abuse of legal process to delay recovery proceedings is impermissible and emphasized the necessity of balancing procedural integrity with substantive justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between proceedings for condonation of delay and the entertainment of the revision itself under section 154(2-A) of the MCS Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the grounds for delay condonation and the liberal approach to adjudicate an issue on its merits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
