A.IR:617/2010
IA-1091/2010 (Delay) – Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner drew the attention of this Tribunal to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and stated that the same may be perused and stated that a perusal of the said order would reveal that the writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy.
The Ld. Counsel drew the attention of this Tribunal to the affidavit filed in support of this IA and stated that a perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioner had filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court because the post of Chairperson was vacant at that time and that thereafter withdrew the said writ petition to seek the alternate remedy and thus filed the appeal here. The Ld. Counsel stated that the petitioner has filed the appeal immediately after the withdrawal of the writ petition and stated that the delay has occurred due to the fact that the W.P. No.5698/2009 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pending.
Ld. Counsel Shri Pandurangan appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that only the post of Chairperson was vacant and the office i.e., Registry of this Tribunal was working and now the petitioner cannot say that there was nobody to receive any filing. The Ld. Counsel stated that inspite of the absence of the Chairperson, Office of the DRAT was functioning and any person was entitled to file any application during the working hours on any working day and therefore the reason stated by the petitioner that the post of the Chairperson was lying vacant cannot be accepted and that the petitioner is only trying the drag on the proceedings and is now trying to seek protection under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and that this Tribunal cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and prayed that the application be dismissed as public money is involved and stated that a sum of more than Rs.67 lakhs is at stake in this case and this Tribunal cannot be a mute spectator to the delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner. The Ld. Counsel also stated that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know of the case only after he met his relative cannot at all be believed.
Heard both sides.
It is seen that the reason stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the post of Chairperson was lying vacant and therefore the petitioners could not file this appeal in time and therefore they had to proceed to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. It is common knowledge that the Registry of this Tribunal does not close when the post of Chairperson is vacant and therefore the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the delay was caused due to the post of the Chairperson lying vacant cannot be accepted. Therefore it can be seen that the delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by the petitioner and such being the case this Tribunal is driven to conclude that the petitioner has not shown that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the period of limitation and further that he had also not properly explained the delay that had occurred thereafter.
Therefore in the light of the above it can be seen that the delay has not been explained properly and this Tribunal is compelled to dismiss this IA.
Accordingly this IA is dismissed.
This order was issued by the Honble Chair person of DRAT Chennai on 27th july 2012
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment