DRAT Kolkata Holds Administrative Lapses Not 'Sufficient Cause', Dismisses Karur Vysya Bank Appeal

The Kolkata Bench of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) on 20 May dismissed Karur Vysya Bank's appeal as time-barred and held that internal administrative issues such as officer retirement, departmental relocation, and procedural delays do not amount to “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning delay.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava refused to condone a 194-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed:

“Law is very well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that State or its instrumentals has to be taken on similar footing that of private litigant. No special status could be given to them.

In the present case the Appellants should have been vigilant enough to pursue their case……Further, the Bank was required to protect the rights of the Bank by preferring the appeal within time. Even if the Recovery Department of the Bank was relocated, when it was done could not be established.”

Tanvi Enterprises filed a securitisation application before DRT-II, Hyderabad, which allowed the application on 29 January 2025.

Karur Vysya Bank filed its appeal before the DRAT only on 11 August 2025 along with an application seeking condonation of a 194-day delay. It cited the retirement of the concerned officer on 31 March 2025, relocation of its recovery department, and delay in obtaining certified copies and internal approvals as reasons for the delay.

The bank applied for certified copies on 28 April 2025 and received them on 23 June 2025. It then took time to seek instructions from higher authorities, consult counsel, and prepare the appeal. Tanvi Enterprises opposed the application and argued that the bank failed to show any sufficient cause and that it could not benefit from its own administrative lapses.

Justice Srivastava relied on Supreme Court precedents including Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector (2024), Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987), Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013), and K.B. Lal v. Gyanendra Pratap (2024) while examining the scope of “sufficient cause”.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the bank amounted only to administrative explanations and not legally acceptable justification for condoning delay. It also noted that even after receiving the order on 23 June 2025, the bank took more than a month to prepare the draft appeal.

Justice Srivastava further held that the bank failed to demonstrate diligence expected under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Accordingly, the DRAT dismissed the condonation application and consequently rejected the appeal as time-barred.