Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Roger P Mathew vs The South Indian Bank Ltd on 5 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 368/2021 (Delay) in A.IR:68/2021
Roger Mathew V/S Ao, South Indian Bank & Ors 05/11/2026
Learned Counsel for Petitioner and Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank are present.
This application is filed for condoning the delay of 520 days in filing the appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that SA No. 141 of 2014 has been filed to challenge the possession notice dated 20.2.2014 issued by the second Respondent for recovery of Rs. 20,90,66,472/- as on 19.2.2014. This Securitization Application was dismissed on 27.8.2019. Petitioner filed a copy application on 10.10.2019 and copy was made ready on 14.10.2019. The appeal was filed on 4.3.2021. The other main reason for filing this appeal with delay is the onset of COVID-19 followed by lockdown imposed by the Government from 24.3.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 10.1.2022 in re, Misc. Application No.29 of 2022 in Misc. Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu WP (C) No. 3 of 2020 exempted the period from 24.3.2020 till May 2021 in calculating the period of limitation in respect of cases filed before courts and tribunals. Thus, effectively there is a delay only from the period 14.10.2019 to 24.3.2020.
Objecting to this application, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the order in SA No. 141 of 2014 had been passed during the pre-COVID period, that is on 27.8.2019. The huge delay in filing the appeal with the delay condonation application cannot be entertained for the reason that the possession notice was issued on 20.2.2014 for recovery of Rs. 20,90,66,472/-. The appeal filed before this Tribunal had been dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.9.2021 and then restored as per orders in IA No. 609 of 2021 on 14.11.2024. Subsequent measures had been taken for selling the secured asset. Despite sale of properties, the Bank is not able to realise the entire loan due. Thus, he prays for dismissal of this application and the appeal.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
The delay in filing this appeal is 520 days. Admittedly, SA No. 141 of 2014 was dismissed on 27.8.2019. Copy application was filed on 10.10.2019 and had been made ready on 14.10.2019. Strangely, the appeal was filed only on 4.3.2021 when Petitioner had sufficient time from 14.10.2019 to 24.3.2020 for filing the appeal. This period of delay is not properly explained.
That apart, it is informed that subsequent measures had been taken for sale of the secured asset and it is sold. Despite that, the debt due is not realised in full by the Respondent Bank. Therefore, this Tribunal finds that there is no valid ground made out for condoning the huge delay of 520 days in filing this appeal.
In result, IA No. 368 of 2021 filed for condoning the delay of 520 days in filing this appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal AIR (SA) 68 of 2021 is rejected. Sd/-
Chairperson