High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith ' the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ' Order or orders, Direction or Directions to quash the order of the DRAT Kolkata, dated O6-O2.2[25passed in l A No' 559 of 2}24and in Chamber Appeal Diary No' 898 of 2O24and allow the l A No 559 of 2O24filed U/sec 5 of the Limitation Act' on the fires of the DRAT Kolkata, by condoning the deray of 11 days in filing the Chamber Appeal Diary No 898 of 2O24and allow the Chamber Appeal Diary No' 898 of 2024 filed on the files of the DRAT Kolkata' with a direction to the Registrar of the DRAT 'Kolkata to accept the fess Rs' 200/- (Rs' Two Hundred onry) which is in accordance under Rule 13(1)(e) of the Security lnterest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 1 i I I I I ; 1 : l i I i I I i I i I i 1 ','d..' '"-7 ,/ IAN O:1 OF 202s petition under Sec 2002 against the petitionl ;,ff ;i:::iJ*i;i-l:;.'"J;i'i':::ilrlJ; HH r ;:::il: not to initiate any proceedings under SARFAEST Act, ;u;::,*:;:[];il,;,::::i::: :, [ :1"#:; ;l;i:i;] ]..i1 _ Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. SANJAY AGARW ron rtri". ffii,Hili,^iff"T'lt 3T:8il,.,_" counser for the Respondent Nor:sRr counsel for the Respondent No.3: ,_,ril_yT0UifEirr, B:fl:,i*H=,.,:i"i l#"#" ,. Counsel for the Respondent No.2:_ The Court made the following: ORDER w@ THE HON,BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B'R'MADHUSUDIIAN RAO WRIT PETITIO N NO.8 440 0 2025 F Mr.Sanjay Aganval, pctitioner (party-in-person) for M/s Ghanshyamdas Gems & Jcwels- Mr.V.V Ramana, Icarned counsel representing Mr'N V'Subba Ra-iu' thc learned Standing U";;"i;;;;;;l"s for the respondent No 3' ORDER: (l'cr Hon'blc Justrce Moushumr tlhaLtacharya) Thc pctitioncr is aggrieverl by an order passed by thc Dcbts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Kolkata dated 06'02 2O25' 1'he impugned order was passed in an appeal filed by the petltloner from the order of thc Registrar' DI{AT' Kolkata' dal.ed 04 09 '2024' l}y the order dated O4 O9'2O24' trre Registrar ordered payment of Court Fee of Rs.1,O0,0O0/ -

2. The petitioncr challcngecl the orcler of the Rcgistrar in the DRAT, Kolkata aiong with a delay application (l'A'No 559 of 2024\ of 11 rlays. DRA'|, dtsmissed the I A (deiay application) on the ground thal Rule - 6(5) of thc Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 does not provide for any extension of time for hling of the appeal beyond the statutory time limit'

3. The petitionir appears in person and argues Lhat the DRAT dailccl to noticc Ilulc-2O of the l)ebts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ':. a 1 l lfts,J & BRMII IVP No.844O of 2025 (Procedure) Rules, 1994, which orders passed on any appeal to as to lhc I'ribunal cilher in pqrg Counsel also seeks to rely on Rules, 20O2 with regard to fecs anC i 8 of the Sccurilisation and and En[orccm(,nr of Sccurity In petitioner would ot_rly bc require appeal lrom rhc order passed

10.o5.2021. provides for communicatior_r of all the the appellant, the rcspondent.as wejl on or by registered post free of cost. the Security Interest (Enldrcement) for applications ur-rdcr Sections I7 Reconstruction of F.inancial Assets terest Act, 2OO2 to urge that the d ro pay Rs.200/- as fee lor rhc trY the I)R'l', Il1,cler-abad, dated

4. After hearing the petrtioner in for the respondent No.3/punjab Nati tha I t hc st.ope o[ I hc Wnt pcr ition is daLed 06.O2.2025, whereby rhe pcririo the ground of deiet_v. person and counsel appearing onal llirnk, wc arc of the vicu. limited to the impugned order ner's appeal rvas ciismissed on 5 We have perused the orcler 6 Rule 6(5) of the Debts Recovery Appellatr: Tribunal (procedure) Rules, 1994, provides Lhat an Appcal against the orcler oI. the Registrar under Rule 6(4) shall be made within fifteen days of the making of such order to the chairperson concerned a,d that the decision shall be firial. Unlike Rule _ 6(5) of the 1994 Rutes, the : /i t \ \ \ 3 MB,.J & BRMR,J W.P.No.8440 oI2025 proviso to Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy AcL, 1993 envisages appeals being entertained beyond the statutory time period of thirty days from the date of which copy of the order has been made to the Appellate Tribunal The Proviso to Section 20(3) provides that the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal after expiry oi thirty days if the Appellate Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient causc for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time Period' 7. Therclore, the leniet-rcy envisaged in the proviso to section 2O(3) is absent in Rulc - 6(5) of the 1994 Rules' Rule-6(5) of the 1994 Rulesmakesthetlmeperiodoflrfteendaysfromthemakingofan order hnal. We hcnce do not hnd any error in the impugned order' The impugned orde r rccorcls that Lhe order dated 04 'O9 '2024 of th.e Registrar, DRAI, Kotkata was upkraded on 09 09 2024 and hence' the appeal vvas ltled with an admitted delay The Appellate Tribunal accordingly dismissed the I A' for condonation of deiay as being contrary to thc 1994 Ilules'

8. We hence did not find any scope for intcrfering or quashing the impugned order clated 06.O2'2025 of the DRAT' Koikata' 9 . W.I']. No.844 O ol 2025 is accordingly dismissed along with all connected apPlications. 1 1 M}],J & B RMR,J W.P No.8440 of 2025 a{ Intcrim orders, if any, shall stand order as to costs closed. lhere shall be no To, //TRUE COPYII ^',Sii5;XIi,#[By#[ x SECTION OFFICER to M/s. GHANSH'AMADAS I LB!1?? ;,ut# r€pl'pnft mr: riy:: tr li,i:;y,]: GME' AND i:ff'" .ENTRALGow) *u suBBARAJU,sc ropuc] ;. ;,gSdiU[! PVL Y,{"" ---+- HIGH COURT DATED:03 tO7t2O25 ORDER WP.No.8440 of 2O2S * '; r1:.- Sra 16 '( J c IJ t; 10 SEP 2E 2liz)l * oa. \:._..-.__ n DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS /Q;t )x