KK Praveen vs JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Ltd on 2 February 2026

O R D E R

1. MA No.33/2016 in OA No.439/2014 :- This petition is filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte final order dated 27.11.2015 passed against the defendants.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition to condone the delay of 206 days in filing the petition MA No.34/2016. It is the submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the earlier counsel did not represent them during the hearing of the OA and that he did not file vakalath executed by them and that they had believed their advocate that he would take care of the matter and that they came to know of passing of exparte final order only on 20.06.2016 when they received copy of the final order sent by this Tribunal. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner had been admitted as inpatient in Renai Medicity Hospital, Mamangalam for paralysis and hypertension for two days and that the 2nd petitioner who is his wife had taken care of him and that therefore there was delay of 206 days in filing the petition to set aside exparte final order.

3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the petitioners had been aware of the pendency of the OA and that they had been diligently prosecuting an SA No.953/2012 filed by them before this Tribunal challenging the measures initiated by the 1st respondent under the SARFAESI Act 2002 and that the petitioners filed W.P (C) No.11176/2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and that the writ petition was dismissed and that therefore, the contention of the petitioners that 1st petitioner had been admitted in the hospital and that 2nd petitioner had taken care of him and that their earlier counsel failed to file vakalath and written statement is absolutely false and that there is no bonafide in filing this petition and that the delay of each and every day in filing this petition has not been properly and satisfactorily explained by the petitioners in their affidavit filed alongwith the petition and that therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent Asset Reconstruction Company filed OA No.439/2014 against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent who are the defendants seeking for recovery of outstanding loan due of Rs.2,76,18,922/- MA No. 33/2016 in OA 439/2014

with accrued interest. Pursuant to service of summons on the petitioners, they entered appearance through their Advocate on 31.10.2014. At the request of the counsel for the petitioners, matter was adjourned to various dates for filing the written statement. Since the petitioners failed to file their written statement, this Tribunal was constrained to set them exparte on 30.10.2015 i.e. after a lapse of one year from the date of their first appearance before this Tribunal. The 2nd defendant was also set exparte for non-filing his written statement. After hearing the counsel for the 1st respondent final order was passed on 27.11.2015 allowing the OA as prayed for.

5. Even assuming for argument’s sake without admitting that the petitioners’ counsel failed to file vakalath executed by them and written statement on their behalf, it is the bounden duty of the petitioners to enquire their counsel as to whether vakalath and written statement was filed. The above matter has been conveniently omitted to be stated in the affidavit filed alongwith this petition. Therefore, this Tribunal is not inclined to believe the above averment of the petitioners.

6. It cannot be disputed by the petitioners with regard to filing of SA No.953/2012 against the 1st respondent challenging the measures initiated under the SARFAESI Act before this Tribunal and also filing of W.P. (C) No.11176/2015 by the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The above writ petition was dismissed on 14.10.2015. Final order in the OA was passed on 27.11.2015. No medical records has been produced by the petitioners to show that the 1st petitioner had been suffering from hypertension and paralysis. When the petitioners had sufficient time and opportunity to file the above said SA and the writ petition, their contention that they were not aware of the proceedings of the OA is absolutely false. The petitioners have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands. Further the delay of 206 days has not been properly and satisfactorily explained by the petitioners in their affidavit filed alongwith this petition. When such delay is not properly and satisfactorily explained, the delay of 206 days cannot be condoned. Therefore, this Tribunal does not find any merits or valid grounds to condone the delay in filing the petition MA No.34/2016 in order to set aside final order which was passed on 27.11.2015.

In view of the forgoing reasons, this petition MA No.33/2016 stands dismissed. Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 02nd day of February, 2026.

[Su. WILLYAHM]

PRESIDING OFFICER