Ms ANS Industries and Eight Others vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 6 November 2025

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the Petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 1198 days in filing MA Dy No.75 of 2025 to recall the order passed by Ld. DRT-I Chennai in TA No.86/2019 dated 31.08.2021.

Brief facts of the case as averred in the application

2. It is stated that the Petitioners have filed MA Dy No.75 of 2025 praying to recall the order passed by Ld. DRT-I Chennai dated 31.8.2021 in TA No.86/2021 since the same has been obtained by the applicant bank by playing fraud. It is also stated that the said order was received on 18.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same the 2nd Petitioner filed W.P. No.23989 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct the petitioners to approach the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai. The petitioners therefore filed AIR No.205 of 2021 before the Hon’ble DRAT. As the post of Hon’ble Chairperson was vacant the petitioners filed W.P. No.25792 of 2021 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the same was dismissed by order dated 15.03.2022 with a direction to approach Hon’ble DRAT.

3. The earlier counsel could not comply with the objections raised by the Registry and hence the appeal was declined on 24.03.2022. The petitioners came to know of the rejection of the appeal only on 02.06.2023. The petitioners therefore sought for reopening the appeal AIR 205/2021, however, as directed by the Registry of the Tribunal the petitioners filed second appeal in AIR No.767 of 2023 with delay of 620 days in filing the appeal and the delay petition was dismissed on 6.2.2025 on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal against the order declining to register the appeal before Hon’ble Chairperson and hence the fresh appeal filed could not be entertained.

4. It is stated that the petitioners have been approaching the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble DRAT on time and hence there is no question of delay.

5. It is also stated that pending SA No.604/2022 filed by the petitioners before this Tribunal, the Ld. Recovery Officer has started to proceed in TRC No.11/2024 issued in TA No.86/2019.

6. As the petitioners could not get any judicial order in their favour the petitioners are constrained to file this application, however, with a delay of 1198 days. It is stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton but only due to circumstances brought out above.

7. It is contended that the order in TA No.86 of 2019 obtained by the bank by fraud is nullity and hence the limitation Act would not apply to recall the order dated 31.8.2021 passed in TA No.86/2019. It is prayed that the delay of 1198 days in filing the application to recall the order of DRT-I Chennai in TA No.86/2019 be condoned. Counter Affidavit of the 1st Respondent

8. The petitioners cannot maintain the application as the Tribunal becomes “functus officio”, the moment petitioner filed an appeal in AIR No.205 of 2021 before the Appellate Tribunal. Having lost the appeal remedy the petitioner cannot revert to the lower tribunal seeking to recall the Recovery Certificate.

9. TA No.86 of 2019 filed by the applicant bank seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,94,02,972.88p after detailed contest was allowed on 31.08.2021 entitling the bank to recover the amount borrowed by the petitioners after deducting the sale proceeds. The petitioners filed W.P. No.23989 of 2021 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras against the said order and the same was dismissed on 10.11.2021. The petitioner then filed AIR No.205 of 2021 before the Hon’ble DRAT challenging the final order passed in the OA, since there was no Chairperson the petitioners again moved W.P. No.25792 of 2021 on 15.03.2022 before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the same was also dismissed.

10. In appeal in AIR No.205 of 2021 the petitioners failed to comply the office objections and the same was declined by the registry. Without rectifying the appeal objections the petitioners filed a fresh appeal in AIR No.767 of 2023 on 12.06.2023 with a delay of 620 days. The said appeal came up on 06.02.2025 for arguments, the Appellate Tribunal held that the petitioners ought to have filed an appeal against the order declining to entertaining appeal in AIR No.205 of 2021 instead filed a fresh appeal in AIR No.767 of 2023, hence cannot be entertained and dismissed the same. In these circumstances the petitioners filed the present application without a legal ground and the same is not maintainable.

11. Due to the default committed by the applicants the loan account was classified as NPA on 25.04.2013. Thereafter the bank has been initiating measures under SARFAESI Act and also filed OA to recover the dues. However, all these years the petitioners initiated one litigation or other and continuously dragged the bank to courts without making any payment.

12. The details of litigations initiated by the petitioners to avoid repayment and their status are as follows: -

(i) SA No.67 of 2014 filed challenging the Possession Notice dated 27.12.2013 – No infirmity in the SA is reported by Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and suggested that the bank actions of the bank are in accordance with law and the applicant is not in touch with him. Hence SA is dismissed for default on 11.03.2015.

(ii) SA No.374 of 2016 filed challenging the tender cum auction sale notice dated 20.06.2016 - As the sale notice has become infructuous for want of bidders and as appellants failed to establish any infirmities the SA was dismissed on 08.08.2016.

(iii) SA No.80 of 2019 filed challenging the auction sale fixed by the bank – applicants failed to comply the conditional order passed by DRT-I Chennai. No sale took place. SA disposed of as infructuous on 25.09.2019.

(iv) OA No.97 of 2015 (on the file of DRT-II Chennai) (Transferred to DRT-I Chennai renumbered as TA No.86 of 2019) – OA allowed on 1.8.2019.

(v) W.P. No.34745 of 2019 before Hon’ble High Court of Madras to direct bank not to take any coercive actions against the properties and guarantors until DRT-I take final decision in the interim applications in TA No.86 of 2019 – Disposed off and the order dated 1.8.2019 was set aside and remanded back to DRT-I Chennai and to give disposal in accordance with law.

(vi) TA No.86 of 2019 after remand was allowed as prayed for with further interest and cost.

13. The petitioners are trying to make out a case out of nothing. Having availed the facilities in the year 2009 enjoyed the same, committed default even in the year 2013, the account was classified as NPA in 2013. From that date the petitioners have been initiating multiple litigations but have not paid any amount and the outstanding due and payable by the petitioners Rs.4,10,00,000/- as on 30.06.2025.

14. The petitioners are chronic defaulters and court birds, always dragging the respondent bank to litigation without any cause. If the present application is entertained the bank would suffer a lot and it will be very difficult for realizing the dues from the defaulters. It is therefore prayed that the condone delay application be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Points for consideration

15. Having heard the party who appeared in person and the Ld. Counsel for the 1st Respondent bank and after perusing the available records, the following issue arises for consideration:

“Whether the petitioners have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1198 day in filing MA Dy No.75 of 2025 to recall the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in TA No.86 of 2019?” Answers to the point for consideration

16. Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires that the applicant but demonstrate “sufficient cause” for not preferring the application within the prescribed period. The expression “sufficient cause” must receive liberal interpretation only when the delay is not deliberate, negligent, or malafide. It has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “sufficient cause” means a cause which is beyond the control of the party, and which is bonafide, not due to negligence, inaction or lack of diligence. It is equally well settled that where there is gross negligence or unexplained laches, the Tribunal cannot mechanically condone the delay.

17. The petitioners’ explanation that they were prosecuting other proceedings does not stop limitation, unless they were diligently and bonafide prosecuting another civil proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction. Even then, Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only to a proceeding in the same cause and between the same parties, and not to a recall after dismissal of an appeal.

18. The petitioners’ appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT were not dismissed on merits but for non-compliance and procedural defaults. Ignorance of registry orders, failure of counsel, or lack of communication cannot be treated as “sufficient cause”. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a litigant cannot take shelter behind the negligence of counsel to justify inordinate delay.

19. It is an admitted fact that the impugned order was passed on 31.08.2021 and that the present application is filed only in the year 2025 and the delay thus spans over three years and three months (1198 days).

20. It is also undisputed that the petitioners had already invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon’ble DRAT by filed AIR No.205 of 2021 and subsequently AIR No.767 of 2023. Having exercised their right of appeal, the petitioners cannot now revert to this Tribunal and seek recall of the same order. Further, once an appeal has been filed, the original tribunal becomes functus officio and cannot revisit or recall its final order.

21. Further, the petitioner’s assertion that the order dated 31.08.2021 was obtained by “fraud” is very vague and the petitioners have not pointed out any misrepresentation or suppression by the bank that misled this Tribunal

while passing the order in TA No.86 of 2019. Mere repetition of the word “fraud” cannot nullify a decree that has attained finality. Hence the contention that the order is a nullity is untenable. Thus, the judgments relied upon by the Petitioners viz., Order of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CRP(NPD) No.745 of 1991 dated 18.03.2016 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1334 with 1737 of 1995 dated 9.8.1996 are of no help to the petitioners.

22. On the question of delay the petitioners have cited the writ petitions and appeals filed before other forums as the reason for delay. However, there is no material to show that any of those proceedings prevented them from approaching this Tribunal within time. Further, the failure of counsel to comply with registry objections or ignorance of dismissal cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioners have failed to give any valid reason. Further, the pattern of repeated litigations before DRT, DRAT and Hon’ble High Court without making any payment, clearly indicates that the petitioners have been adopting dilatory tactics to stall recovery. The explanation offered is, therefore, neither bonafide nor convincing.

23. In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish that they were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the proposed recall application within time and the explanation of the petitioners reflects lack of diligence and a continuing attempt to reopen concluded proceedings. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioners have not made out any sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1198 days in filing the application to recall the order dated 31.08.2021 in TA No.86 of 2019.

24. Hence the following: -

ORDER

(a) MA No.20 of 2025 filed by the petitioners’ seeking condonation of delay of 1198 days is dismissed as devoid of merits.

(b) The accompanying petition in MA Dy No.75 of 2025 to recall the final order dated 31.8.2021 passed by this Tribunal in TA No.86 of 2019 also stands dismissed as not maintainable for the following reasons:-

(i) MA No.20 of 2025 filed by the petitioners seeking to condone the delay of 1198 days in filing MA Dy No.75 of 2025 is dismissed as devoid of merits.

(ii) The petitioners once preferred appeals before the Hon’ble DRAT this Tribunal becomes functus officio in respect of the order dated 31.08.2021.

(iii) This Tribunal cannot review or recall its final adjudication once the appellate jurisdiction has been invoked. Sd/-

(SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY)

PRESIDING OFFICER

DRT-II, CHENNAI

(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 6th day of November, 2025)