Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 509 (CAL)

Sumit Dutta v. State Bank of India

2018-07-19

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. By virtue of the impugned order, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, dismissed an appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 2. It is evident from the admitted facts that the order assailed in such appeal was passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata, on September 24, 2013. Taking advantage of the bank having been taken notional possession only in the year 2015, the petitioner took out a writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal on February 27, 2015, assailing such order. 3. Ultimately, the writ petition went up to appeal, where it was held by a Division Bench of this Court, on January 10, 2017, inter alia that the present petitioner might approach the appropriate forum under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. On February 9, 2017, that is, soon after the order of the Division Bench, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, challenging the order of the tribunal. 4. Although there is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the pendency of the writ petition and the connected appeal afforded the petitioner the protection of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the fact, that the writ petition and the appeal were entertained, itself indicates that the error of forum, committed by the petitioner, was bona fide. 5. However, there is no feasible explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay between September 24, 2013, when the tribunal passed the order dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 17 of the said Act of 2002, and February 27, 2015, when the connected writ petition assailing the same was filed. 6. By way of explanation, the petitioner seeks to project mala fides in the conduct of the bank. It is alleged that the bank practised fraud upon the court, which created confusion in the mind of the petitioner, in turn occasioning the delay. 7. All the allegations levelled by the petitioner as to fraud or otherwise are denied on behalf of the bank. 8. First, such fraud was not established beyond doubt. Secondly, conduct of the bank could not absolve the petitioner from preferring the challenge against the order of the tribunal within the statutory time limit. 9. 7. All the allegations levelled by the petitioner as to fraud or otherwise are denied on behalf of the bank. 8. First, such fraud was not established beyond doubt. Secondly, conduct of the bank could not absolve the petitioner from preferring the challenge against the order of the tribunal within the statutory time limit. 9. A lame excuse was sought to be given by the petitioner for the period between September 24, 2013 and February 27, 2015 by way of the averment that the petitioner was initially under bona fide impression that the highest bidder had put in the bid amount on the appointed days and/or deposited the balance amount duly. 10. The petitioner says that only when the petitioner was dispossessed from his residential house on January 30, 2015 did the petitioner come to know of the necessity to challenge the order of the tribunal. 11. Such contention is entirely misplaced in view of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata, dated September 24, 2013 being passed on contest, in the presence and within the knowledge of the present petitioner. The petitioner cannot take umbrage under the fiction of some ‘bona fide impression’ without there being any basis for such impression. 12. As such, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, was entirely within its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated September 1, 2017, whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay was disallowed and consequentially the appeal, bearing Appeal No. 24 of 2017, was dismissed as time barred. 13. Accordingly, C. O. No. 1786 of 2018 is dismissed on contest, without, however, any order as to costs. 14. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.