Smt Vishnumolakala Siva Kumari vs BANK OF BARODA (DENA BANK) on 30 December 2020

**ORDER**

This petition is filed by the applicant with a prayer to condone the delay of 260 days to restore the SA.257/2018 in the interest of justice.

2. According to the case of the applicant is that no notices were never served to her under SARFAESI Act and after knowing the alleged illegal auction she filed SA.257/2018 and further stated that that she contacted her counsel about the case and due to COVID-19 she was unable to come

to DRT Visakhapatnam since February to till 30.10.2020; that her counsel not given correct information and as per net information the SA.257/2018 was dismissed on 17.1.2020 as no representation of applicant and substitution petition not filed to implead ARC in place of respondent bank and SA dismissed for non prosecution as the applicant or ARC has no interest to prosecute the matter. It has been further stated that she has a strong case and grounds in the main SA and it has been stated that she came to know on 31.10.2020 the status of the case by virtue of e-courts it was dismissed on 17.1.2020 however there is a delay of nearly 260 days in filing set aside petition and therefore prayed to condone the delay of 260 days in filing the set aside petition and to restore the SA.257/2018 in the interest of justice.

3. The respondent bank has filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that the respondent bank is not a proper and is not necessary party to the present proceedings in MA.89/2020 and further stated that the applicant filed the SA.257/2018 before the Tribunal and during the proceedings of the SA the respondent bank informed the Tribunal by way of memo with details on 26.7.2019 that the debt has been assigned to M/s.Omkara Asset Reconstruction Company

and the Tribunal ordered the applicant to take steps for substituting the respondent in place of M/s.Dena Bank but the applicant did not comply with the order and after ample opportunity given by the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the SA.257/2018 hence stated that the respondent bank is not proper party to the present SA and is also not necessary party to the petition for condoning the delay of stated 260 days and also the petition is devoid of merits and therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Written arguments have also been filed by both parties reiterating the averments made in the petition and counter.

5. Heard both sides and perused the petition, counter as well as written arguments. As can be seen from the docket proceedings of the above SA.No.257/2018, it is observed that the applicant herein has filed an application with a condone delay petition MA.69/2017 before the Tribunal challenging the measures initiated by respondent bank. Counter in MA.69/2017 was filed by the respondent bank and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal allowed the said condonation delay petition MA.69/2017 on 18.6.2018 and ordered the Registry to number the SA and since then no representation on behalf of A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to read "D. Nello", is written above a horizontal line. There are two small dots below the line.

applicant was made on 5.7.2018, 20.9.2018, 23.10.2018 in spite of giving sufficient time and even no representation was made on behalf applicant and therefore ultimately on 23.10.2018, the SA was dismissed as no representation for the applicant and for non prosecution of the matter as the applicant has no interest to prosecute the matter. Again the applicant filed a petition MA.185/2018 to restore the SA and the Tribunal allowed the said petition on 26.6.2019 and directed the applicant to issue notice to respondent bank by next hearing date otherwise SA shall stands dismissed and posted the matter to 26.7.2019 and at that juncture a memo has been filed by respondent bank stating that loan was assigned to Omkara Assets Reconstruction Company and the Tribunal directed the applicant to take steps to implead Omkara Assets Reconstruction Company and posted the matter to 5.8.2019. But the applicant in spite of taking several adjournments granted by the Tribunal i.e., on 5.8.2019, 23.8.2019, 13.9.2019, 16.10.2019, 13.11.2019, 16.12.2019 and in spite of ordering to file substitute petition, the applicant did not file the petition and also no representation was made and ultimately on 17.1.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the SA for non prosecution of the applicant as well as ARC and as no interest to prosecute the matter. Again, on 2.11.2020 the applicant filed this petition MA.89/2020 to condone the delay of 260 days to restore A handwritten signature in dark ink, appearing to read "Dhara" or similar, with a long horizontal line extending from the end of the signature to the right.

the SA, which cannot be tolerated. As stated supra, on perusal of the entire docket proceedings it can be seen that the applicant has availed ample time and opportunity from the Tribunal after filing the SA and not represented the matter properly and even the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file substitute petition to implead ARC the applicant did not bother and not shown interest to prosecute the matter and therefore the Tribunal vide orders dt.17.1.2020 dismissed the SA for non prosecution of the applicant as well as ARC as no interest to prosecute the matter. However, even on perusal of the present petition averments I found no cogent reasons in the petition filed by the petitioner to allow the petition and the delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner for condoning the delay of 260 days and the attitude of the applicant is also very clear from seeing the docket orders that the applicant has no interest to prosecute the matter but only to drag the matter as far as possible and therefore I am of the considered opinion that there are no merits in the petition and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the MA.89 of 2020 is dismissed however without costs.

[GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THIS THE 30^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020]

PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM