Delay In Filing Appeal Before DRT Against Recovery Officer Order Cannot Be Condoned U/Sec 5 Limitation Act

Case: Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs Oriental Bank of Commerce

Coram: Justice MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna

Case No.: CA 6898 OF 2021

Court Observation: The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19 only. The Appellate Tribunal has been conferred the power to condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer are not before a Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent 3 for exclusion was express. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case and even otherwise considering Section 30 of the Act, 1993, we are also of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the DRAT and in restoring the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

[doc id=12173]

Previous Posts

Intention To Cause Death Immaterial If Prosecution Proves Ingredients Of “Thirdly” Of Section 300 IPC: Supreme Court

Power Of Judicial Review Cannot Be Invoked To Decide Equivalence Of Prescribed Qualifications With Any Other Qualification: Supreme Court

Businessmen Will Be Hesitant To Enter Govt Contracts If Undertakings Are Altered On Mere Change Of Person In Power: Supreme Court

Land Acquisition Act 1894 -Section 17(4) Notification Liable To Be Quashed If State Fails To Show Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Urgency: Supreme Court

Fully Reasoned Order Not Necessary For Taking Cognizance On The Basis Of Police Report: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords

Delay In Filing Appeal, DRT, Recovery Officer, Sec 5 Limitation Act