Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

Shri Mafatlal Da Bhaibhai Rabari & Ors vs DCB Bank on 20 August 2026

1MA 47 of 2017**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD****Present: Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer****MISC. APPLICATION (Condonation of Delay) No.\_\_\_\_ of 2017****IN****MISC. APPLICATION No.47 of 2017****IN****O.A. No.641 of 2016****Date of Order: 20/08/2026**

Mafatlal Dabhaibhai Rabari & Ors. .... Applicants **Versus**

DCB Bank Ltd.. .....Respondent

**Present:** Mr. M. A. Solanki, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.

Mr. L. M. Patel, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank

**ORDER**

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsels for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.47/2017 have been heard.

2. 2. The present application has been filed by the Applicants on the ground that O.A.No.641/2016 was disposed of as Ex-parte by this Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 19/05/2017. The Applicants applied for certified copies of various proceedings in O.A.No.641/2016 on 09/06/2017 and the same were ready and delivered to the Applicants on 12/06/2017. Upon perusal of certified 2MA 47 of 2017

copies of the documents, the Applicants came to know that O.A.No.641/2016 was disposed of without any contest by the Defendants. Therefore, the Applicants have preferred Misc. Application u/s. 22(2)(g) of RDBI Act for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 19/05/2017 passed by this Tribunal. The Applicants have filed the said Misc. Application on 04/07/2017. Therefore, if the limitation period is counted for the date of knowledge, the Applicants have filed Misc. Application for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 12/05/2017 within the prescribed time limit of 30 days. However, the Applicants have stated that even if delay of approximately 15 days is considered, the same may be condoned in the interest of justice.

Page 1 of 2

3. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank has opposed the application for Condonation of Delay on the ground that reasons mentioned in the application are false and neither legal nor proper nor sufficient and no sufficient cause has been shown for Condonation of Delay of 15 days. He further submitted that the application for Condonation of Delay has now become infructuous as the Applicants failed to process the same for a period of 9 years. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.

4. Considering the fact that the Applicants obtained certified copies of relevant documents on 12/06/2017 and fact that they filed Misc. Application on 04/07/2017 before this Tribunal, there appears to be no delay. Still however, the Applicants have prayed for Condonation of Delay of approximately 15 days caused in filing aforesaid Misc. Application.

3MA 47 of 2017

1. 5. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present application for Condonation of Delay is allowed and delay, if any, caused in filing M.A.No.47/2017 is hereby condoned.

Put the M.A.No.47/2017 for hearing on 05/09/2026.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Saloni

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead