IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.29373 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 24.02.2026 Between:

NCDEX e Markets Limited, rep. by its Authorised Signatory …..Petitioner AND Canara Bank, Korrapadu Road, YSR Kadapa District, rep. by its Authorised Officer and Three Others …..Respondents Mr. N.Ashwin Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.Naga Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petition has been filed assailing an order dated 25.04.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’) dismissing an Application (I.A. No.38 of 2025) filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the Appeal against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad (‘DRT’) on 25.01.2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2020.

2. The petitioner (appellant before the DRAT) is the respondent No.4 in O.A.No.120 of 2020 filed by the respondent No.1-Canara Bank before the DRT under section 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDB Act’). O.A.No.120 of 2020 was filed against several parties including the petitioner for a direction on the respondents therein to pay the Bank an amount of Rs.22,96,128/- and for issuance of a Recovery Certificate in terms of all the reliefs prayed for. The DRT allowed O.A.No.120 of 2020 by order dated 25.01.2024. The petitioner challenged the DRT’s order by filing an Appeal before the DRAT (Appeal Diary No.1131 of 2024) along with an Application (I.A.No.38 of 2024) for condonation of delay of 81 days in filing the said Appeal. The petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay was dismissed by the DRAT on the ground that the petitioner failed to make out ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay. The petitioner’s Appeal was consequently dismissed as time-barred.

3. The issue before this Court is whether the DRAT was correct in dismissing the petitioner’s Application on the grounds stated in the impugned order dated 25.04.2025.

4. We have heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No.1-Bank.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the DRAT took into account irrelevant factors for dismissing the Application for condonation of delay. Counsel submits that the DRAT placed undue importance on the petitioner’s conduct before the DRT. Counsel submits that the DRAT should have confined itself only to the reasons stated in the petitioner’s Affidavit for condonation of delay or rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Canara Bank submits that the DRAT duly considered the reasons stated in the petitioner’s affidavit for dismissing the Application. It is further submitted that the Writ Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the DRAT in refusing relief to the petitioner. 7. We have carefully considered the impugned order dated 25.04.2025 dismissing the petitioner’s Application under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 (‘the Limitation Act’). The operative portion of the impugned order, namely, paragraphs 15 - 17 reflect an unwarranted emphasis placed by the DRAT on the petitioner’s conduct before the DRT in contesting the OA filed by the respondent No.1-Bank. Paragraph 15 indicates that the DRAT took into account the copies of the orders in the OA proceedings before the DRT and records that the petitioner was given full opportunity to represent its case, but failed to avail such opportunity and that counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time on 22.11.2023 to argue the matter before the DRT, but failed to do so on that day or thereafter i.e., on 06.12.2023 and 14.12.2023. Paragraph 15 further records that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to file Written Notes of Arguments, but failed t