Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 283
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Anil Kumar Srivastava, Chairperson
M S JAGITYALA WARE HOUSING PRIVATE LTD – Appellant
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA (ANDHRA BANK) – Respondent
Appl. Dy No. 193 of 2024 | S.A. 252 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Ravinder
For the Respondents: Aparajita Rao, Nabanita Dutta
To condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant must establish 'sufficient cause' for the entire duration of the delay, supported by documentary evidence; mere assertions of illness without proof are insufficient.
Headnote:The matter involves an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 288-day delay in filing an appeal against an order by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, which had set aside an e-auction sale and ordered a refund to the auction purchaser. The appellant contended that the delay was caused by the health problems of the Managing Director. The court found that the appellant failed to provide any medical certificates or documentary evidence to substantiate the claim of illness. The primary issue is whether the appellant established 'sufficient cause' for the delay. The court reasoned that under the law, an appellant must explain the delay for the entire duration from the date the limitation period began until the actual date of filing. The court observed that a simple statement regarding health problems, without supporting evidence, does not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause' required to exercise discretionary power for condonation. Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the auction sale challenge and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding the existence of sufficient cause for condoning the delay. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal standards requiring a comprehensive explanation for the entire duration of a delay. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. dismissal of condonation application due to lack of documentary evidence supporting the claim of illness. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
1. I.A. 108 of 2024 is filed u/s 5 Limitation Act praying for condonation of 288 days delay in preferring the appeal against the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by learned DRT-I, Hyderabad whereby e-auction sale conducted by the bank was set aside and bank was directed to refund the amount to the auction purchaser with 9% interest simple.
2. Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent and perused the records.
3. S.A. 252 of 2019 was filed by the borrower challenging the auction sale conducted by the bank on 20.08.2019 in pursuance of the sale notice dated 30.07.2019 on certain grounds. S.A. was ultimately allowed by the learned DRT by passing the impugned order. Auction sale conducted by the bank was set aside and bank was directed to refund the amount to the auction purchaser with 9% interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment within one month.
4. The order passed by learned DRT was challenged by the bank by preferring appeal being no. 129 of 2023 wherein the only challenge was made regarding rate of interest. Appeal was allowed on 16.01.2024 by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7% simple. Subsequent thereto the amount along with interest was credited to the account of the auction purchaser which was received by him without any protest.
5. Thereafter, instant appeal is filed on 05.03.2024 along with Section 5 Limitation Act application for condonation of 288 days’ delay on the ground that Managing Director of the appellant company was suffering from health problem and could not instruct his counsel. After recovery from the ailment he applied for certified copies of the entire file and the cause papers were sent to Kolkata on 28.02.2024 and appeal was thereafter filed on 05.03.2024 with the application for condonation of 288 days delay.
6. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that delay was caused for the ailment of the Managing Director of the appellant company. It is further submitted that judgment passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal filed by the bank is also challenged before the Hon’ble High Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that in the present application u/s 5 Limitation Act, no ‘sufficient cause’ could be shown by the appellant for condonation of delay. Basic principle of condonation of delay is to show sufficient cause. Learned counsel further submits that bank has already settled the matter with the borrower and account was closed. However, learned counsel for appellant would submit that account was settled pending S.A.
8. 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.”
