Ashok Menon, Chairperson
1. The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by appellants for seeking urgent relief.
This is an application filed for restoration of the appeal at Diary No. 999/2024 which was dismissed for non-compliance with the order directing the appellants to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 30 lakhs in two instalments. On the date of the order the appellants had paid ₹ 5 lakhs and the balance ₹ 25 lakhs was directed to be paid in two instalments of ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 15 lakhs respectively, on 10.10.2024 and 24.10.2024. When the matter was called on 11.10.2024 for reporting compliance it was noted that the appellants had not complied with the order of this Tribunal. There was also no application for an extension of time.
2. On 14.10.2024, the matter was called and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The appellants have now filed this application for restoration of the appeal and the demand draft for ₹ 25 lakhs which is the entire balance amount payable has also been produced. The appellants submit that the 1st appellant was not feeling well because of high blood pressure he had a medical emergency which precluded him from paying the amount and he also could not inform his Counsel at the appropriate time for applying for an extension. The demand draft was drawn on 17.10.2024 which is before the 2nd instalment of ₹ 15 lakhs was due and payable and therefore, it is prayed that indulgence be shown and the appeal be restored to file.
3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed this application stating that the appellants are not entitled to any indulgence and that there was no submission even on 14.10.2024 regarding the medical emergency which is now stated by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the 1st appellant was laid up and was not even in a position to contact the Counsel, no appropriate application for extension of time could be filed.
4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that there is no provision under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ the SARFAESI Act” for short) for restoring an appeal dismissed for default.
5. The Tribunal has under the provisions of Sec. 19(25) of the RDB Act, in the interest of justice, sufficient power to pass orders even though there is no specific provision for restoration of this appeal. I am of the opinion that there is no embargo in this application being allowed. The appellants have produced a medical document to indicate the illness of the 1st appellant.
6. The demand draft for ₹ 25 lakhs which is the entire balance to be paid is also produced before the 2nd instalment was due and therefore, I find that there is no willful default on the part of the appellants on paying the amount on time. The application for restoration is allowed and the interim orders are restored.
The appeal shall be taken on file if there are no other defects to be cured.
List on 12.11.2024 before the Ld. Registrar.
