Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37305 of 2018 Petitioner :- Madan Singh Respondent :- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad And 05 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Veerendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Pashupati Nath Tripathi
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated dated 28.09.2018, by which the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (DRAT) has allowed Appeal No. 111 of 2015 filed by the respondents borrower against the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (DRT) dated 05.5.2015. By that order, the DRT has rejected the securitization application filed by the respondents borrower as time barred.
2. The DRAT has taken note of the fact that earlier the respondents borrower had earlier filed Writ-C No. 6399 of 2012. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition by order dated 14.02.2012, leaving it open to the petitioner (respondents borrower) to file objections before the appropriate authority before confirmation of the sale. It has been further noted that in pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the borrowers filed objection before the respondent bank and thereafter approached the DRT, in which process time was consumed and consequently delay was reported in the securitization application thus filed.
3. Therefore, looking at the conduct of the respondents borrower and treating the borrowers to have acted with due diligence, the DRAT has condoned the delay and has further directed the DRT to conclude the proceedings within four months.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DRAT has completely erred in computing the delay of eight days. According to him, the delay is about 90 days.
5. Learned counsel for the bank has also advanced submissions to the effect that upon computation of interest, the dues of the bank have increased. It is, thus, submitted that borrowers have been dealt with very lightly by the Tribunal.
6. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the computation of delay as made by the DRT is accepted to be erroneous and it is further assumed that there was a delay of 90 days, still, in view of the conduct of the respondents borrower, as noted by the DRAT that they had acted with diligence, inasmuch as they first filed the writ petition before this Court, wherein certain directions were issued to raise objections before the authority; filed objection before the bank immediately after the disposal of the writ petition and further filed the securitization application in the month of April 2012, there does not appear any error on part of the DRAT in condoning the delay. The discretion in that regard appears to have been properly exercised upon consideration of relevant facts. There is no patent or apparent error.
7. In that view of the matter, the DRAT has condoned the delay on correct application of law, so that the rights of the parties may be adjudicated on merits instead of allowing the proceedings to attain finality on the technical plea of delay and in view of the fact that further directions have also been issued for expeditious disposal of the proceedings by the DRT, no further directions are required in this regard.
8. Petition lacks merit and is, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 AHA