UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTIN COMPANY LTD on 16 January 2020

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on this 16t h day of January, 2020)

Both parties called absent. Reply of respondent nos. 2 and 4 not filed to I.A. 882/19 inspite of the opportunities granted and though the main case is ripe for disposal. Hence reply of respondent nos. 2 and 4 to I.A. 882/19 is treated as „nil‟. 02.00 The main case is for condoantion of delay of 26 days in filing review application to review the order dated 04.12.2018 passed in O.A.no. 162/2014 under which recovery certificate was issued. Applicants stated in their application that previously the time for filing review application was 60

dtg/- days and it was reduced to 30 days after subsequent amendment. Applicants‟ advocate further submits that the applicants were under the impression that they can file review application within 60 days by ignoring the amendment which came into effect from 03.11.2016 and subsequently they came to know about the amendment by which time 26 days elapsed and hence they filed an application to condone said delay of 26 days and requested to number review application. 03.00 From among the respondents, respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed their replies out of which respondent nos. 2 and 4 are only formal parties and they took formal pleas in their replies. 04.00 1 s t respondent filed its reply in Exh. 10 and submits that the name of the Act is wrongly quoted in the title of the application and that it is defective. Respondent no. 1 contends that the applicants are having well versed law officers and advocates practicing in DRT. R1 submits that it has to recover crores of rupees from the applicants and delay condonation application be rejected with heavy costs. 05.00 Ironically, the very same 1 s t respondent herein filed M.A. 84/19 to make certain corrections in the recovery certificate issued in O.A. no. 162/2014. So, it is indirectly admitted that certain corrections are to be effe cted in said dtg/- recovery certificate to give clarity. Unless and until this delay condonation application is allowed and applicants are allowed to put forth their views in the review application, such clarity cannot be arrived at. For that reasons also, this application needs to be allowed. That apart, applicants explained the delay properly in their application. No prejudice will be caused to the other side, if delay is condoned which infact, will give clarity to the whole dispute between both the parties. Hence in order to give one reasonable opportunity, this Tribunal feels it just and proper to condone the delay in filing review application by the applicants herein. Hence this application is allowed on costs of Rs. 2,600/- payable to the loan account within 3 days. On depositing the same, office to register applicants‟ review application, if otherwise, in order. In view of disposal of main case (MA 33/19), pending I.As and interim protections made therein are deemed to have been closed/vacated. Each party do bear their own costs.

Nagpur

Dt.: 16.01.2020

(Chikkam Vijay Mohan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal Nagpur.