Mr Gaurav Jalan vs Prudent Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. on 20 June 2025

1. 1. This matter is taken up by this Tribunal through Hybrid mode.

2. 2. The present Misc. application has filed on behalf of Defendant No. 1 along with **IA No. 1481/2024**, for condonation of delay in filing an Misc. application to set aside the ex parte final judgment dated 08.08.2024, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the Original Application (OA) and passed a recovery certificate for Rs. 540,73,47,595.49 along with interest at 18% per annum. The Applicants submit that they came to know of the ex parte order only upon receipt of the Demand Notice dated 25.09.2024 and, thereafter, promptly acted by obtaining legal advice and moving the present application. It is submitted that the delay, if any, is not inordinate and has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances beyond the Applicants' control. They assert that they have acted bona fide and with due diligence, and unless the delay is condoned, grave prejudice would be caused to them, while no corresponding prejudice would be caused to the Respondent.

3. 3. Ld. counsel for Applicant has relied on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court, *GP Srivastava Vs RK Raizada and Ors (2000) 3 Supreme Court cases 54, Another judgement of Hon'ble Madaras High Court Ammni Ammal Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd Tiruppur and Ors 2008 (1) CTC 816 and Ravi Enterprises Vs Indian Bank, Thiruvottiyur and Ors 2008 (1) CTC 785.*

4. 4. On the other hand, the Respondent, Prudent ARC Limited, has strongly opposed the present application, submitting that the Defendants had actively participated in the OA

Sd- proceedings earlier by filing NDN (MA) No. 175 of 2024 and were well aware of the pendency of proceedings. The Respondent contends that after having participated, the Defendants deliberately stopped appearing before the Tribunal under the mistaken belief or assumption that the matter had settled outside the Tribunal, which cannot constitute a valid or sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Respondent further states that the Applicants' filing of a repetitive application on identical grounds as earlier reflects a mala fide attempt to stall lawful recovery proceedings. It is also highlighted that the application suffers from procedural infirmities, including non-disclosure of a specific sub-clause under Section 22 of the RDB Act, 1993, and failure to demonstrate due diligence during the pendency of proceedings. The conduct of the Applicants, particularly their breach of the Deferred Payment Settlement Agreement dated 04.05.2021, underscores a lack of bona fides.

1. 5. After considering the submissions made on behalf of Ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The primary ground for delay pleaded by the Applicants is their alleged unawareness of the ex-parte judgment until receipt of the Demand Notice dated 25.09.2024. So far as, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, cited in support of the plea for condonation of delay, **G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 54**, *The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "sufficient cause" in the context of delay must be construed liberally to advance substantial justice, particularly where the applicant has not acted negligently or with a lack of bona fides.* **Ammni Ammal v. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Tiruppur & Ors., 2008 (1) CTC 816**, *The Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed condonation of delay where the Applicant had demonstrated good faith and a genuine intent to contest the matter on merits.* **Ravi Enterprises v. Indian Bank, Thiruvottiyur & Ors., 2008 (1) CTC 785**, *In this case, the High Court reiterated that liberal principles must be applied in condoning delay when there is no deliberate attempt to abuse the process or mislead the court.*

2. 6. However, the reliance on the above judgments, though indicative of general principles applicable to condonation of delay, is found to be distinguishable on facts when compared to the present case. In **G.P. Srivastava and Ammi Ammal**, the delay was occasioned by factors such as improper service of notice or administrative lapses, and the courts were satisfied that the applicants had no knowledge of the proceedings. However, the record clearly indicates that the Applicants, including Defendants, were previously aware of the proceedings and had actively participated therein, including filing earlier miscellaneous applications. Their subsequent absence from proceedings appears to be a conscious decision rather than one borne of unavoidable circumstances. The Tribunal finds no credible explanation for this prolonged disengagement, and misplaced assumptions regarding out of court settlements or administrative transfer of the case from one DRT to another cannot be considered a sufficient cause under settled legal principles. Moreover, the admitted execution of a Deferred Payment Settlement Agreement followed by default further affirms the Applicants' awareness of ongoing recovery action. The conduct of the Applicants does not reflect diligence or bona fide intent, but rather a strategy to delay the enforcement of a recovery certificate already issued after due adjudication.

1. 7. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the Applicants have failed to establish any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. Their previous participation in the proceedings, followed by deliberate non-appearance under erroneous presumptions, cannot constitute a valid ground to invoke the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Accordingly, **NDN (MA) 210/2024 and IA No. 1481/2024** seeking set aside ex-parte judgment and condonation of delay are hereby **dismissed**.

2. 8. File be consigned in to the record room.

20.06.2025

(SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

This image is a scan of a blank page. The paper has a light beige or cream-colored tint. There are a few very small, faint dark spots scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or minor imperfections in the paper. No text, lines, or other markings are present.