IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON Diary No. 1060 of 2024 (Arising out of I.A. 1755 of 2019 in S.A. 511 of 2014 at DRT-I, Hyderabad)

Order No. 05

05.02.2025 Bank of Baroda … Appellant -Vs-

Kosetty Krishna & 5 Others … Respondents Mr. Nemani Srinivas, with Mr. Kaustav De Sarkar, Learned Counsel for the Appellant THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the Appellant is taken on record.

2. Instant appeal has been preferred against order dated 18.7.2019 passed by Learned DRT-I, Hyderabad in S.A. 511 of 2024. Challenging the order, a Writ Petition No. 20291 of 2019 was filed by the Appellant before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court on 29^th April, 2024. Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that an appeal, under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, lies against the impugned order, before the DRAT. Learned Counsel further submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that “the petitioner shall take recourse to the remedy of appeal within a period of eight weeks from today.”

3. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court directed that for a period of eight weeks, interim order granted earlier, shall continue and in case the petitioner files an appeal within the aforesaid period of eight weeks from today, the DRAT shall extend the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the petitioner. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition was disposed of.

4. It appears that thereafter an appeal was filed on the 10^th of December, 2024, i.e. after about 224 days of passing of the order by the Hon’ble High Court.

5. An application, I.A. 571 of 2024, for condonation of delay is filed with a prayer for condoning the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal. A supplementary affidavit is also filed by the Appellant.

6. I have heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 18.7.2019 was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 20291 of 2019 which was decided on 29th April, 2024 with a liberty to the Appellant to prefer an appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. But the Appellant did not prefer the appeal within the stipulated time.

8. Appellant has taken a ground that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated time as Learned Counsel for the Petitioner entrusted the work to the Learned Counsel on 1st June, 2024, i.e. after more than a month of passing of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. Thereafter, it is stated that Learned Counsel assured to file the appeal within the stipulated period but did not file the same. On or about 15th September, 2024 he told the petitioner that his associate in Kolkata has been entrusted with the filing of the appeal. Thereafter, the file from the legal department of the petitioner at Hyderabad was transferred to the legal department of the Kolkata on 1st October, 2024. Legal department of Kolkata approached the Learned Counsel at Kolkata and told him that due to Puja Vacation the Court will re-open in November, 2024. Thereafter, conference was held and the draft was finally made ready on 28^th November, 2024. Accordingly, condonation for the delay in filing the appeal is sought for.

9. At the very initial stage, it is observed that the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court himself had submitted that the appeal shall be filed within eight weeks from the date of the order. But the undertaking by the Learned Counsel, made before the Hon’ble High Court, was not honoured or complied by the Appellants themselves. The time granted by the Hon’ble High Court expired after eight weeks. No further extension of time was sought from the Hon’ble High Court; rather, Appellants preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

10. At the very ou