Reportable/Non-Reportable IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON Misc. Application Dy. No. 285 of 2026 (Arising out of Regular Appeal Dy. No. 212 of 2019)

1. M/s. Varasiddhi Vinayaka Agro Foods, Rept. by its Proprietrix Smt. Puredla Santhi, W/o. P. Girish Babu, Hindu aged 58 years, Office situated at Industrial Park, Phase-II, Plot

15E, Peddapuram, East Godavari-533437.

.…Appellant -Versus-

1. The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India, SARB Branch, Administrative Building, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Samarlakota Branch, East Godavari District.

3. M/s. Dlixir Met Form Pvt. Ltd., reptd. by Sri Penamatcha Praneeth, resident of D. No.8-3-169/24, Siddhartha Nagar, Behind Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad-500038, Telangana State (Added this Respondent as per the order dated 26.02.2019 in I.A. No. 289 of 2019.

….Respondents Counsel for Appellants Ms. Nitu Singh, Ms. Ritika Kedia, Mr. Anurag Kumar Counsel for Respondents None JUDGMENT : 8^th April, 2026 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

Admission I.A. No. 206 of 2026 Instant Application I.A. No. 206 of 2026 is filed for condonation of delay of 760 days in filing an Application for restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed in default of the Appellant on 11.01.2024.

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Applicant and perused the records. Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that the Applicant’s Counsel did not inform him about the dismissal as there was mis-posting of the diary of the Learned Counsel and nobody could appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed. When the Applicant came to know about the dismissal, he contacted some different lawyer and moved the restoration Application.

3. Bare perusal of the record will reveal that the Appeal Misc. Appeal Diary No. 752 of 2023 was dismissed in default on 11.01.2024. This order of dismissal was duly communicated to the Appellant M/s. Varasiddhi Vinayaka Agro Foods by the Registry of DRAT Kolkata vide letter No. F.No. MISC/APPEAL/DY/752/2023/DRAT/KOL/21 dated 17.01.2024. There is no denial of the fact that this letter was sent to the Appellants or not received by them. Accordingly, even if the ground taken by the Applicant regarding the mis-posting of the date in the diary of the Learned Counsel is accepted for the sake of arguments even then, delay in filing the Application for restoration is also not having any sufficient ground. When the communication was made on 17^th January, 2024, then the Applicant is required to make out a case of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

4. As far as legal proposition regarding condonation of delay is concerned, the basic criteria is to see as to whether any sufficient cause has been shown by the Appellants for condonation of delay or not?

5. As far as condonation of delay in filing the appeal is concerned, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives & Others -vs- Union of India & Another [(2023) 10 SCC 531] has held in paragraphs 30 and 32 as under:

“30. X x x condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.”

“32. x x x At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) -vs- Ahmed Jaan [(2008) 14 SCC 582], held that proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent. In para 10 it is held that “There is no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its Counsel could be laid. The expression ‘sufficient cause’