Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

41. In his alternate submission, it is submitted that the Divisional Joint Registrar could not have even otherwise considered the application for condonation of delay filed by the borrowers in filing the revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act unless a mandatory condition of deposit of 50% of the due amount was complied with by the borrowers under section 154 (2A) of the MCS Act. He submits that admittedly the borrowers did not deposit any such amount and thus learned Divisional Joint Registrar even could not have entertained the said application for condonation of delay in filing such revision application. The entire order thus passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is contrary to section 154 (2A) of the MCS Act. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the lender strongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. vs. Shilpa Shares & Securities & Ors., 2018(6) All MR 1 and in particular paragraphs 78 and 79 thereon.

43. Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel for the lender who also appeared in Writ Petition No.2407 of 2013 filed by the lender adopted the submissions made by Mr.Pai in Writ Petition No.2406 of 2013 and would submit that the delay of six years and two months was not sufficiently explained by the borrowers. The Divisional Joint Registrar could not have entertained even the application of condonation of delay without the borrowers depositing 50% amount due under section 154 (2A) of the MCS Act. He also strongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Barindra Overseas Private Limited & Anr. (supra) and reiterated his submissions in Writ Petition No.2436 of 2013 and 2442 of 2013 and would submit that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar condoning the delay of six years and two months deserves to be set aside.

61. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the lender alleging non-compliance of section 154(2A) of the MCS Act by the borrowers is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the borrowers that the powers of the Divisional Joint Registrar to hear the revision application under section 154 of the MCS Act would be exercised only after the delay, if any, in filing the revision application is first condoned. The question of any deposit under section 154(2A) of the MCS Act would arise only after such delay, if any, is first condoned. The borrowers were thus not required to deposit any such amount under section 154(2A) of the MCS Act at the stage of argument of the said application for condonation of delay or along with the said application for condonation of delay as a condition precedent. In support of the submission that unless the delay is condoned, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or revision in law, learned counsel for the borrowers placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Pandharinath Rambhau Kavitke vs. Shaikh Hamaja Shaikh Husen 2000 Vol. 102(3) Bom. L.R. 563 and in particular paragraphs 10 and 11.

100. Insofar as the Writ Petition Nos.2406 of 2013, 2407 of 2013, 2436 of 2013 and 2442 of 2013 filed by the lender before this Court impugning the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 17 th January, 2013 thereby condoning delay of six years and two months in kvm WP435.13 alongwith connected matters filing the revision applications by the borrowers under section 154 of the MCS Act is concerned, It is not in dispute that the borrowers had not deposited 50% of the certified amount after giving credit of the amounts already paid as a condition precedent under section 154(2A) of the MCS Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether such application for condonation of delay filed by the borrowers itself could have been heard by the Divisional Joint Registrar before compliance of the mandatory condition under section 154 (2A) of the MCS Act by the borrowers or not.