Reportable / not reportable IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - KOLKATA HON'BLE Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson REGULAR APPEAL No. 04 of 2025 (Arising out of MA 46 OF 2024 in O.A. No. 72 of 2018 – DRT-I Hyderabad)

24.04.2025 PEGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED having registered office at Regus Business Centre, Level-4, 1.10.39 to 44, Gumidelli Towers, Begumpet, Hyderabad –

500016.

... Appellant --Vs--

1. INSTRUMENTS TECHNIQUES PRIVATE LIMITED having office at B 2 Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad – 500037.

2.SRI S RAVI residing at 301, KLK KSHETRA, 8-2-686/7/4, ROAD NO 12, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD- 500034.

3.RAVI ELECTRONICS PVT LTD at FLAT NO 1209, 11TH FLOOR, VASAVI MPM GRAND,YELLA REDDY GUDA ROAD, AMEERPET, Hyderabad – 500073.

4.CATHOLICS SYRIAN BANK LTD at D NO 5-9-241, 1ST FLOOR, OPP GRAMMER SCHOOL, ABID ROAD, Hyderabad –

500001.

... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Nimish Mishra, Ld. Adv.

Mr. Ankit Chatterjee, ld. Adv.

For Respondent:Mr. Nimish Mishra, ld. adv. resp. no.1 Mr. Rahul Verma, ld.a dv.

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. Adv.

The Appellate Tribunal Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated

20.11.2024 passed by learned DRT-I Hyderabad in M.A. No. 46 of 2024 arising out of O.A. No. 72 of 2018 [M/s. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction P.

Ltd.] whereby learned DRT allowed the M.A. 46 of 2024.

It appears from the pleadings, O.A. 72 of 2018 was filed by the appellant herein against five defendants for certificate amount of Rs.1,04,97,697.79, which was allowed exparte on 15.08.2018. Thereafter, an application u/s 22(2)(g) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 read with Section 5 Limitation Act being I.A. 1812 of 2022 and MAIR No. 918 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay of 1539 days in preferring the application for setting aside the exparte decree. This was filed by defendants no.1, 3 and 4. This application was allowed by the learned DRT vide order dated 22.07.2024 and delay in filing M.A. was condoned. Order dated 22.07.2024 was not challenged by the secured creditor. Thereafter, learned DRT dispose of the M.A. filed u/s 22(2)(g) of the Act for setting aside the exparte decree by passing the impugned order, which is under challenge.

A bare perusal of the impugned order would reflect that learned DRT has passed the order without assigning any reason. It is an unreasoned order. It appears that learned DRT was persuaded to allow the M.A. on the same ground application u/s 5 Limitation Act was allowed. However, learned DRT is expected to decide the M.A. on its own merits on the basis of the ground taken in application for setting aside the exparte decree as well as objection raised by the opposite party. It is a settled legal proposition that an order should always be a speaking order wherein it should reflect the grounds upon which the Learned DRT have arrived at a particular conclusion. The grounds taken by the Appellant should also be considered before accepting or rejecting the same. If reasons are not given in the order, it is an arbitrary exercise of power by the DRT.

In Brijmani Devi -Vs- Pappu Kumar and Anr., [(2022) 4 SCC 497], Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“22. On the aspect of the duty to accord reasons for a decision arrived at by a court, or for that matter, even a quasi-judicial authority, it would be useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in Kranti Associates (P) Ltd., v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 wherein after referring to a number of judgmentsthisCourt summari sed at para 47 the law on the point. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are extracted as under:

(a) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(b) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(c) Reasons reassure tha