Interest Loss Not Ground For Condonation Of Delay: DRAT Kolkata Rejects ASREC Appeal Filed After 910 Days

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata has refused to condone a delay of 910 days in filing an appeal, holding that the explanation offered by the appellant did not disclose sufficient cause to justify condonation of such an inordinate delay.

The tribunal also observed that delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground that the claimants were deprived of interest during the period of delay.

The observations were made by Chairperson Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava while deciding an application filed by ASREC (India) Ltd seeking condonation of delay in preferring an appeal against an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam on October 8, 2021.

“Further condonation of delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay while holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach,” the tribunal observed.

The appeal was filed on November 26, 2024 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 910 days. ASREC submitted that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

It argued that limitation stood extended under the Supreme Court's orders passed in suo motu proceedings relating to extension of limitation during the COVID-19 period, and that the personnel handling the matter had subsequently left the organisation.

According to the appellant, after the earlier personnel left the organization, steps to pursue the matter were initiated from October 3, 2024 when a new official began taking action and contacted counsel for filing the appeal.

The appellate tribunal observed that condonation of delay is a discretionary power which can be exercised only when the explanation offered demonstrates sufficient cause and reasonable diligence. It held that vague grounds or lack of particulars cannot justify condonation of an inordinate delay.

The tribunal noted that the appellant had stated that the concerned personnel had left the organisation, but no details were furnished regarding who the person was, when he left, or when the new official took charge.

It observed, “Even after 01.06.2022 only one ground is there that the concerned official or personnel left the organization as has been recorded earlier. No details of such person are available. Further, when the new personnel came is also not on record.”

Holding that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay, the DRAT dismissed the condonation application and consequently rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.