Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 307
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Bank of Baroda (e-Vijaya Bank), ARM Branch, Bahseerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Officer-cum-Chief Manager and Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Rep. by its Registrar and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.11370 of 2025
Decided On : 29-04-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.V. Ramana, learned counsel representing Mr. N.V. Subba Raju, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.K. Deshpande, learned counsel.
The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is conditional upon a litigant's diligence and compliance with court-ordered timelines. Failure to file an appeal within a granted window renders the benefit inoperative, and institutional negligence does not constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay under Section 5.
Headnote:(A) The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 18; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 14 - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Conditional benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act - Failure to comply with directions of High Court to file appeal within a stipulated timeframe - Benefit of excluding time cannot be extended - Lack of diligence shown by the petitioner - Reasons provided for delay do not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5. (Paras 13, 15, 18)
(B) Condonation of Delay - When a party enjoys interim protection and is given a specific window to pursue a remedy but fails to do so, subsequent filing of the appeal as a reaction to a recovery order of the lower authority cannot be termed as bona fide or diligent. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
A bank challenged an order of the Tribunal directing the refund of a bid amount with interest to an auction purchaser. The High Court had previously suspended the recovery of interest and granted the bank a period of eight weeks to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, directing that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act be extended provided the appeal was filed within that stipulated window. The bank failed to file the appeal within eight weeks and instead filed it after 224 days, seeking condonation for a delay of 169 days. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, which was subsequently challenged via a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since the bank failed to comply with the High Court's specific direction to file the appeal within eight weeks, the consequential benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act became inoperative. Furthermore, the justifications provided for the delay, including institutional procedures and the failure of advocates to take steps, did not satisfy the requirement of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the bank had enjoyed interim protection for five years and that the late filing appeared to be an afterthought following a recovery order passed by the Tribunal.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for condonation of delay and whether the bank was entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act despite failing to meet the court-mandated deadline.
Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be extended to a litigant who fails to adhere to a specific timeframe set by the court for pursuing a remedy. Institutional delay, administrative lapses, or negligence by counsel do not constitute "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the party has already benefited from prolonged interim protection.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The Writ Petition has been filed against an order dated 05.02.2025 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’).
2. The petitioners before this Court are the Bank of Baroda ARM Branch and the Bank of Baroda, Vijay Nagar Colony Branch, the respondent No.3 is the Borrower and the respondent No.4 is the Auction Purchaser.
3. The respondent No.3 had availed credit facilities from the writ petitioners/Bank for a sum of Rs.11,75,00,000/- by creating collateral securities. As the loan was classified as Non-Performing Asset, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’). Subsequently, several Securitisation Appeals were filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (‘DRT’) challenging the Sale Certificate. The DRT passed Docket Order dated 03.05.2019 in IA.No.1755 of 2019 in IA No.1479 of 2019 in SA No.511 of 2014, filed by the respondent No.4, directing the writ petitioners/Bank to refund the bid amount of Rs.4,64,86,000/- to the respondent No.4 with simple interest @ 5% per annum within two weeks from the date of that order.
4. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the Bank filed WP.No.20291 of 2019 and a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.10.2019 suspended the recovery of interest amount awarded against the Bank. On 29.04.2024, another Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by extending the interim order granted by the earlier Division Bench for a period of eight weeks subject to the Bank filing an Appeal before the DRAT within eight weeks from the date of that order. The Division Bench also directed the DRAT to extend the benefit of section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 to the Bank subject to the aforesaid direction.
5. It is admitted that the Bank failed to file the Appeal before the DRAT within the time period granted by the Division Bench i.e., within eight weeks from 29.04.2024. The Bank filed the Appeal on 10.12.2024 i.e., after 224 days of the order passed by the High Court. The Bank, however, filed an application (I.A.No.571 of 2024) for condonation of delay of 169 days in filing of the Appeal. The DRAT dismissed the Bank’s IA by way of the impugned order dated 05.02.2025. The present Writ Petition has filed assailing the said DRAT’s order.
6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners-Bank and the respondent No.4, who claims to be the Auction Purchaser. The Court is informed that the respondent No.4 is the only necessary party in the present proceedings and that the respondent No.4 seeks refund of the bid amount with interest.
7. Counsel appearing for the Bank submits that the DRAT erred in dismissing the Bank’s IA for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal against the order of the DRT dated 18.07.2019. Counsel submits that the Bank acted with due diligence and in good faith and the delay was not intentional or deliberate. It is submitted that the delay was caused due to institutional procedures and should not override larger considerations of justice. Counsel makes several submissions on the absence of any right on the part of the respondent No.4 to make a claim on interest.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/Auction Purchaser submits that the Bank failed to prefer any Appeal within the stipulated time frame as permitted by the Division Bench of this Court and hence the order dated 18.07.2019 became final. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 filed MA No.42 of 2024 in SA No.511 of 2014 praying for a direction on the Bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,80,233/-, as per the order dated 18.07.2019 in IA No.1755 of 2019 in IA No.1479 of 2019 in SA No.511 of 2014, being 5% simple interest on the deposited bid amount of Rs.4,64,86,000/- from 22.11.2023 to 28.10.2019. He further submits that MA No.42 of 2024 was allowed on contest and the DRT passed a Docket Order
