9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and further, also upon considering the explanation offered, we are satisfied that such an explanation hardly constitutes exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, and therefore that the impugned order dated 9 March 2009 warrants interference. We note that the appeal instituted by the South Indian Bank Limited against the same impugned order dated 9 March 2006 was allowed by the appellate tribunal on the grounds of delay between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of the said judgment and order. Considering that the tribunal, on that occasion, spoke through its single member, was not quite relevant. It was not the case of the respondent that the single member, i.e. the Chairperson was not competent to dispose of the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AIN, JJ. For the Appellant: Mr. Vankatesh Dhond a/w Toshed Kakalia a/w Harmuz Mehta a/w Ahsen Allance a/w Prateek Pansare i/by J/ Sagar Associates. For the Respondent/ED: Ms. Neha Bhide, APP a/w Mr. Piyush pande. P.C. (PER M.S.SONAK, J.):- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Given the earlier orders made in these two appeals, we admit these appeals and, with the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, proceed to dispose of the same. 3. Though Mr. Dhond raised several questions of law, we admit these appeals on the following question of law without going into those questions. QUESTION OF LAW Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay between the conclusion of the arguments dated 13 December 2006 and the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to vitiate it. 8. Mr. Dhond submitted that the same logic had to necessarily apply in the context of the same impugned order made in the case of the appellant herein. On the premise that a single member made the judgment and order dated 25 January 2021 of the tribunal, it was not open to the division bench of the tribunal, which was not sitting in appeal over the decision of the Chairperson to take some different view. Mr Dhond submitted that this was more so since there was no record of the respondents having appealed or challenged the impugned judgment dated 25 January 2021 in the appeal instituted by South Indian Bank Limited. 9. Ms. Bhide learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this was a matter involving adjudication of alm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order is made on 9 March 2019 i.e., after three years. 2. Mr. Dhond refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal Ors. Vs. Anupkumar Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 430 to submit that in such circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court has set aside the impugned judgment without going into the merits of the case and remitted the same for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant also submits that the appellant is not too sure whether the Special Director who heard the appeal was the one who has actually passed the impugned order. He submits that if some other Officer has made the order, then, the same would be ex facie vulnerable. 4. Ms. Bhide, learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ternational (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter where the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22 March 1989, but the judgment was delivered only on 24 January 1991 set aside the impugned judgment without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remitted the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 18. In Kanhaiyalal Ors Vs. Anupkumar Ors (supra) following Bhagwandas Daswani (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court reiterated that long delay in delivery of judgment is sufficient to set aside the judgment in appeal without expressing any opinion on merits. The Supreme Court, has quoted the observations in Bhagwandas Daswani (supra), which reads as follows; However, it is correct to this extent that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eptional or extraordinary circumstances, and therefore that the impugned order dated 9 March 2009 warrants interference. 21. Apart from the above grounds, we note that the appeal instituted by the South Indian Bank Limited against the same impugned order dated 9 March 2006 was allowed by the appellate tribunal on the grounds of delay between the conclusion of the hearing and pronouncement of the said judgment and order. Considering that the tribunal, on that occasion, spoke through its single member, was not quite relevant. It was not the case of the respondent that the single member, i.e. the Chairperson was not competent to dispose of the appeal. Nothing on record states that the respondents had challenged the tribunal order dated 25 Janu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
