ALI AHMAD AND ANOTHER v. CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE,BENGALURU THRU. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 3 OTHERS
A227/2118/2025 · 2025-04-25
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134304 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 134304 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23671 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2118 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ali Ahmad And Another Respondent :- Canara Bank Head Office,Bengaluru Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Vikas Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Shankar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 02.06.2022 whereby the Securitisation Application No.188 of 2020 filed by father of the petitioner no.1 was dismissed holding that no application for condonation of delay was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he was not aware of the proceedings and later on came to know and a copy of the order was obtained on
20.03.2025.
4. On merits, he argues that the delay condonation application was filed which is on record and is also placed before this Court at Page 61. It is argued that the said application was on record and the DRT has erred in recording that no delay condonation application was filed. He, thus, argues that the order on the face of it is arbitrary and perverse being contrary to the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bank opposes the writ petition by arguing that an appeal is prescribed against the said order before the DRAT under Section 18. He, however, states on instructions that no further steps have been taken by the Bank with regard to the actual sale of property after the passing of the order dated 02.06.2022.
6. Considering the submissions, although an appellate remedy is prescribed, however, on the face of it the order dated 02.06.2022 is erroneous and perverse insofar as it records that no delay condonation application was filed whereas the delay condonation application is on record.
7. Thus, on the said limited ground, impugned order dated 02.06.2022 is quashed.
8. Matter is remanded to the DRT to pass fresh orders after taking into
consideration the delay condonation application filed by the petitioners. The fresh order shall be passed with all expedition.
9. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 25.4.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench