Delay of 51 days in filing the appeal - Dismissed

M/s.Alengar constructions (HUF) V/S Indian bank 
A.IR:223/2010

IA 468/10 (delay) :This is an IA filed for the condonation of the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal against the order passed in IA 891/2002 in OA No.341/2007 (old No.944/1999).

      

Ld.  Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that reasons for the delay have been set out in paragraph 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and prayed that the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal  be condoned for the  reasons stated therein and this IA be allowed.

Ld.  Counsel Shri Balasubramaniam appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that the bank has filed a counter and that the dues to the bank is more than Rs.50.00 crores and that a perusal of the said paragraphs 4 and 5 would reveal that the petitioner has not made out a case for the condonation of delay as the petitioner has not sufficiently explained the cause for the delay and prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

Heard the Ld. Counsel.

A perusal of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner reveals that the petitioner is a Hindu Undivided Family i.e. HUF and that its Kartha is now residing in Chidambaram and Thirunelveli and that there is no office for the petitioner at Chennai.  

 It is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that the copy of the order dt 23.11.2009 passed in IA No.891/02 on the file of DRT-II, Chennai was not served on the petitioner and that the petitioner came to know about the order only on 12.1.2010 and the certified copy of the order was obtained by the petitioner on 13.1.2010. 

 It is also stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that due to the Pongal holidays the Kartha and his family had gone to their native place Thirunelveli and returned to Chidambaram and  that they were able contact their advocate only in the first week of February, 2010 and that the delay of 51 days had occurred in this case. 

 It is stated that due to the aforesaid reasons the delay of 51 days be had been occasioned and it is prayed that this IA be allowed and the delay of 51 days in filing the appeal be condoned. 

It is seen that the Kartha of the petitioner had gone to Thirunelveli along with family members and that they contacted their advocate in Chennai only in the first week of February, 2010.  No reason has been stated for their inability to contact their counsel at Chennai and in the absence of any reason being set out for their inability to contact their counsel at Chennai it can been seen that the reasons set out by the petitioner in the affidavit do not in any way show that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the time prescribed and also do not explain the delay of 51 days.  

It is also seen that a sum of more than Rs.50.00 crores of public money is to be recovered from the petitioner and the OA is pending for the last 11 years.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has not explained the delay properly and that a sum of more than Rs.50.00 crores is due and recoverable from the petitioner and in view of the fact that the OA itself is pending for more than 11 years this Tribunal is compelled to dismiss this IA.  

Accordingly this IA is dismissed.

Chennai 7th oct 2011