Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 533
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Srivastava, CJ
HDFC Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
MAA KALIKA TILES – Respondent
Appeal Dy. No. 476 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nalini Kanta Dash
For the Respondents: None
The court condoned a two-day delay in filing an appeal due to sufficient procedural grounds, allowing for withdrawal and reapplication.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Debts Recovery Tribunal (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 - Condonation of delay - Delay of two days in filing the appeal against an earlier order - Sufficient grounds presented for delay - Appeal allowed to be registered as a regular appeal and disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the Appellant to move the DRT afresh in accordance with law. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
This appeal concerns an order from DRT Cuttack regarding the refund of court fees following a settlement between the parties.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was disposed of with the recognition that the appellant could approach the DRT again as per legal provisions.
Issues: The primary issue was the grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal due to procedural reasons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principles of procedural justice and allowed the appellant to withdraw and refile the application in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal disposed of as withdrawn.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's legal representation and identity. (Para 1) |
| 2. assessment of the procedural delay in filing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. the disposition and rights for the appellant to refile. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final order and expectation from the drt. (Para 6 , 7) |
The matter is taken up in the revised list. None is present for the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is present. All the Respondents are duly served.
2. I.A. No. 282 of 2025 Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of two days in filing the Appeal against an order dated 4th April, 2025. Appeal is filed on 6th May, 2025. It is submitted that the delay is not intentional. Rather, it is procedural.
3. Having considered the submissions made by the Learned Counsel, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No. 282 of 2025 is allowed. Delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.
4. Let the Appeal be registered as regular Appeal by providing a regular Appeal number.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
6. Instant Appeal has arisen against an order dated 04.04.2025 passed by Learned DRT Cuttack in I.A. No. 472 of 2025 in an Application under Rule 5(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Refund of Court Fee) Rules, 2013 wherein a prayer is made by the Appellant for refund of the Court paid on the ground that the matter is settled between the parties. The DRT has already consigned the O.A. proceedings. Hence, the Court fees paid by the Appellant be refunded. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in WP. No. 5229 of 2022 .
7. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the Appellant Learned submits that liberty may be granted to move the DRT afresh and the Appellant may be permitted to withdraw the Appeal. Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the Appellant to move the DRT afresh in accordance with law. Learned DRT is expected to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
ORDER Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the Appellant to move the DRT afresh in accordance with law. Learned DRT is expected to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. No Order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
