UNION BANK OF INDIA vs KONDAKAL GOPAL on 4 August 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON Appeal Diary No. 949 of 2025 Order No. 12 04.08.2026 Union Bank of India ...Appellant -Vs- Kondakal Gopal & 3 0thers … Respondents Mr. Dipanjan Datta with Mr. Subhajijt Chowdhury and Ms. Esha Basak, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Nemani Srinivas with Mr. Tirthankar Das, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Mr. U.K. Sah with Mr. R. Raj, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: Perused the report of the Registrar, DRT-II, Hyderabad dated 01.8.2026 submitted in compliance of the order dated 23.7.2026. Perusal of the report would reflect that the application for certified copy was filed on 5.3.2025. There was a deficiency of Rs.8,280.00 which was communicated to the Applicant and on depositing the same, copy was prepared and handed over but there is nothing on record to show that the deficiency was communicated to the Applicant and when the deficiency was made good by the Applicant. It is further reflected from the report that the concerned Dealing Assistant, viz., Sri M Praveen Kumar, was negligent in performing his duties. He has neither brought on record any written communication which was issued to the Applicant for removing the deficiency. Further when the deficiency was made good, the same was also not brought on record. It further appears that Registrar of DRT-II, Hyderabad was also negligent in performance of his supervisory power. It appears that the Registrar was not vigilant in making regular inspection of the register maintained for preparation of the certified copies. It was his duty to regularly monitor the functioning of the Registry. If any lapse is there, it is the duty of the Registrar to take corrective steps. But the Registrar was also negligent in performing his duty and lacks devotion towards duties. I find that the concerned Dealing Assistant, Sri M Praveen Kumar, was not performing his duties with devotion. Accordingly, let an adverse entry be recorded into his character role to this effect. It should also be communicated to him by the Registry. Further, Registrar, DRT-II, Mr. Y Chandra Sekhar, is warned to remain vigilant in future. It shall be placed on his APAR. Let copy of this order be communicated by the Registry to the Registrar, DRT-II, Hyderabad and Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Hyderabad within three days for compliance and further necessary action. I.A. 566 of 2026

Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Heard the Learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. Instant appeal is preferred against order dated 28.2.2025 passed by DRT-II, Hyderabad. Certified copy was applied on 5.3.2025 which was notified on 19.4.2025. Thereafter, appeal was filed on 14.8.2025. Although condonation of delay of 146 days has been prayed for but the actual delay is of 91 days. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the delay was not intentional rather procedural as the concerned obtaining necessary approval, appeal was filed. Opposed by the Learned Counsel for Respondent. Going through the record, I find the ground, as made out in the application, is sufficient for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. I.A. 566 of 2026, is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Admit the appeal by providing regular appeal number. Opposition be filed within three weeks with copy to the Appellant; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 23rd September, 2026 for hearing of appeal. (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

Dated: 4thAugust, 2026 06/ac