Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mr Kaushik Govind Kothari vs BANK OF INDIA on 3 May 2025
Exh-10
03-05-2025
MA/16/2025
Present :
Mr. Vishal Raval, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Amit Acharya, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed his Vakalatnama Exh.R/8 today and also filed reply to the MA Exh.R/9.
The Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the proposed SA is filed after a delay of 84 days and as far as the reason is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Applicant came to know about the securitisation action initiated by the Respondent Bank at a very late stage, when on 19-12-2024 they came to know that the secured asset is not only been auctioned but the sale proceed of different denominations have been deposited between 19-12-2024 and 20-12-2024. After that, the Applicant approached their Ld. Counsel and the SA was prepared and filed but in between a delay of 84 days has occurred. He has submitted that this delay should be condoned and the SA should be ordered to be registered.
The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has moved his application on the ground that the delay is not well explained and in fact there is no ground that this application should be allowed and he prayed that this MA should be rejected.
I have heard both the Ld. Counsels and perused the records. The object of law is to dispose the dispute between the parties after giving opportunity to be heard and denial of opportunity to be heard on technical ground does not fulfil the purpose of justice. Though this delay is of 84 days but only on this ground the Applicant should not be snatched away of his right to be heard with regard to the securitisation action of the respondent Bank. As far as the delay is concerned it can be compensated on payment of cost.
In these circumstances, in the opinion of this Tribunal, this MA reserved to be allowed with cost.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
MA No: 16/2025 is hereby allowed on payment of the cost of Rs.10,000/- which will be deposited in the **National Defence Fund Account No: 11084239799 (IFSC: SBIN0000691)** with **State Bank of India, Institutional Division, 4<sup>th</sup> Floor, Parliament Street, New Delhi**. On payment of the cost, the Ld. Registrar is directed to scrutinise and register the proposed SA on its original number and arrange for its presentation before this Tribunal as a fresh matter.
With these observations, this MA is disposed of finally.
**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER,** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD.**
us/21