ORDER
1. This Appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) against the order dated 18.1.2018 in MA No.59/2016 in MASR No.3140/2016 in SASR No.3138/2016 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai.
2. The appellant herein filed SARFAESI Appeal with delay petition, which is MASR 3140/2016 to condone delay of 4215 days and that appeal is returned with certain
2
office objections, viz., to file translated copies of Tamil documents. The appellant represented the returned appeal with a delay of 97 days and that application is dismissed, holding that even if the delay in representation is condoned, the next application, which is for condonation of delay is not maintainable as the Tribunal is not empowered to deal with delay in filing application. Holding so, Tribunal below dismissed the delay in representation application.
3. Heard Ld. Counsels for both sides.
4. Advocate for appellant submitted that application to condone delay in representation is only a formal application, but the Tribunal below even considered the main delay application and rejected it, which is not a correct approach.
5. On the other hand, advocate for R3 and R4 submitted that this a third round of litigation and the appellant is wantonly protracting the proceedings and not allowing the auction purchasers to enjoy the fruits of the auction and the Tribunal below rightly rejected the application.
6. I have perused the material papers and the impugned order dated 18.1.2018.
7. As rightly pointed by the advocate for appellant, request for condonation of delay in representation is only a formal request and it is a matter between the Tribunal and
3
the party and the other side has no say in that matter and respondents are only entitled to contest the application filed to condone delay in filing the main case.
8. It appears the Tribunal below, as application for delay in filing the SA is not maintainable, dismissed the application filed to codone delay in representing the SA, which, in my view, is not a correct approach and the Tribunal below ought to have decided the delay condontation petition on merits so that rights of both parties would have been adjudicated in accordance with law.
9. Considering the same, I deem it proper that the impugned order is liable to be set aside with a direction to the Tribunal below to take up delay condonation petition and decide it in a time bound manner.
10. It is represented that delay condonation petition is still at SR stage and the respondents have to file their counter. Advocates appearing for respondents represented that they would file counter within two weeks, after receiving notice in that application and would also cooperate with the Tribunal below in deciding the delay condonation petition.
11. Considering the submissions of both sides, Tribunal below is directed to immediately register the delay condonation application and on receipt of notice in that application, respondents shall file counter within two weeks from the date of receipt of
4
notice and after completion of pleadings, Tribunal below shall decide the delay application as early as possible preferably within 30 days from the date of completion of pleadings.
12. It is further recorded that all advocates shall cooperate with the Tribunal below in complying this direction.
13. MA (SA) 22/2019 is accordingly allowed. No costs. [Dictated to Steno(SN), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 1st June, 2022]
Sd/-
[Justice S. Ravi Kumar]
CHAIRPERSON
5