MR MANJUNATH PARSHURAM BHOSALE vs KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED on 18 February 2021

1. MA No. 48/2019 was moved along with the SA which was filed on 8th July, 2019. In this MA the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is seeking condonation of the delay calculated from the date of symbolic possession i.e. 2nd July, 2018. After that symbolic possession, the Ld. District Magistrate has passed order under Section 13(4) on 23rd December 2018. Thereafter, the physical possession was to be taken on 9th July, 2019 and before that physical possession the applicant has come before this Tribunal on 8th July, 2019 by moving application for condonation of the delay, IA for stay on physical possession and the main SA. The main SA was not registered because there was a condonation of delay.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent bank has vehemently opposed the condonation delay application submitting that as per Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Standard Chartered Bank vs. MSTC Limited (Civil Appeal No.501 of 2020) and University of Delhi vs. Union of India (Civil Appeal No. 94889489

ORDER SHEET (KAUR)

of 2019).

3. Learned counsel for respondent bank submits that without condonation of the delay no hearing can take place on the main petition. He further submits that the party has to explain each day delay whereas in MA no such delay has been explained day to day.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant is relying on some medical records to substantiate the delay. However, it appears that calculation is to be done to see whether there is actually any delay or not.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent bank is heavily relying upon the arguments made in the SA and submits that unless the SA is registered no IA can be entertained. Technically he may be correct but to see the entirety of the matter SA, MA and IA all were moved on 8th July, 2019 and the physical possession was to be taken, which is actually taken, on 9th July,2019, a stay was sought on that so in the opinion of this Tribunal, calculating the limitation from the 13(4) Notice of symbolic possession will do great injustice.

6. In my opinion looking into the totality of this, there is no delay in filing of this SA. MA No.48/2019 stands disposed off with this remark.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that his client is willing to settle the matter with the bank since there is a third-party interest being created because of the auction.

8. The matter cannot be held for long and as such has to be disposed of at the earliest. If the applicant wants to settle with the bank they have to rush up and get it done at the earliest.

9. Registry is directed to register the SA, IA be taken on record. Let the bank file reply to all the IAs and main

ORDER SHEET (KAUR)

SA.

10. Interim order which was not extended on 17th February, 2021 on statement of Bank for not proceeding, stands extended till next date of hearing. List this matter on 10th March, 2021 through VC. In the meantime, parties are at liberty to move any Interlocutory application in case of any emergency. The parties may download the order from the official web- site which will be treated as a true copy as due to COVID 19 & staff constraints, the certified copies cannot be issued as of now till further orders.

(Vimal Gupta)

I/c Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune