Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 158 (MP)

Baleshwar Dayal Jasiwal v. Bank of India

2016-02-25

A.M.KHANWILKAR, SANJAY YADAV

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Counsel For the Parties. 2. As short question is involved, writ petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 3. The principal relief claimed in this petition is to direct the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. 4. Earlier, this Court took the view that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing of appeal before it under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. That view has now been reversed by the Supreme Court. 5. The Supreme Court has remitted the matter back to this Court for reconsideration. Admittedly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal at the threshold on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay in filing of appeal. The Tribunal has not considered the explanation offered by the petitioner. If the Tribunal, while taking the view that it had no power to condone the delay, had also analysed the cause set up by the petitioner, we would have proceeded with the hearing of the matter in respect of that opinion of the Tribunal. Whether sufficient cause has been made out in condoning the delay, must be the satisfaction of the Tribunal in the first place and this Court should be loath to substitute its opinion unless the former is found to be manifestly wrong and not in accordance with the settled legal principles. 6. As a result, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 18.5.2011 and to relegate the parties before the Tribunal for reconsideration of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal by the petitioner. That application stands restored to its original number and to be proceeded before the Tribunal expeditiously. All questions to be considered in the said application, will have to be examined on its own merits in accordance with law, except the issue already decided by the Supreme Court that the Tribunal has been invested with the power to condone the delay in filing appeal. 7. Accordingly this writ petition succeeds in part with the above observation. No order as to costs. 8. 7. Accordingly this writ petition succeeds in part with the above observation. No order as to costs. 8. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property and which possession has been protected by this Court vide order dated 8th December, 2015, that interim arrangement will continue for a period of three weeks from today to enable the petitioner to move the Tribunal for appropriate directions including for continuance of that relief until the disposal of application for condonation of delay, if so advised. That issue will have to be decided by the Tribunal, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the interim order passed by this Court on 8th December, 2015. 9. Petition disposed of accordingly. 10. All pending I.As. in this petition also disposed of accordingly. 11. C.C. as per rules. Writ Petition disposed of a accordingly.