ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED vs ICICI BANK LIMITED & ORS on 3 July 2025

1. 1. This matter is taken up by this Tribunal through Hybrid mode.

2. 2. **IA No. 191/2025** has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 47 days in filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Recovery Officer-II, DRT-III, Delhi in TRA No. 59/2022. It is submitted by the Appellant that the delay occurred due to non-availability of complete records and pleadings of the TRC proceedings, and only the objection filed by Respondent No. 13, Optus Corona Developers Pvt. Ltd., was available at the relevant time.

3. 3. The Appellant further stated that only after the impugned order was passed, additional documents were procured from other objectors and legal consultations were undertaken. The complete file was then handed over to the counsel, resulting in the filing of the appeal beyond the statutory period. It is contended that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents if the delay is condoned, whereas denial of the present application would cause irreparable harm to the Appellant.

4. 4. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 1 Bank has opposed the application contending that the same is wholly devoid of merit and not maintainable in law. It is pointed out that the appeal has been filed with a delay of 47 days beyond the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act. The Respondent submits that the limitation for filing appeal expired on 18.12.2024 and that any delay beyond this period is non-condonable. It is further submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Sd/- proceedings under Section 30 of the RDB Act. In support, reliance has been placed on *International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd.*, (2017) 16 SCC 137, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that statutory tribunals do not have inherent power to condone delay, unless expressly conferred by the statute. Further reliance has been placed on *Standard Chartered Bank v. MSTC Ltd.*, (2020) 13 SCC 618, to assert that the language of Rule 5-A is peremptory and does not permit condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period. The Respondent also states that the Appellant has not cited any enabling provision for seeking condonation, thereby misleading the Tribunal and delaying legitimate recovery proceedings. Dismissal of the application with costs under Section 35-A CPC is prayed for, in light of the judgment in *Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi*, (2011) 8 SCC 249.

1. 5. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and material placed on record, this Tribunal is of the view that the present application is not sustainable. Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides a period of 30 days for filing an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer. There is no provision under the said Act permitting condonation of delay beyond this period. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in *International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd.* has categorically held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings before statutory tribunals unless expressly provided. Similarly, in *Standard Chartered Bank*, the Hon'ble Court held that beyond the statutorily prescribed period of 30 days, there is no scope for condonation of delay. In the present case, the appeal was filed with a delay of 47 days beyond the expiry of the limitation period, and therefore falls outside the scope of condonable delay under the applicable legal framework. Mere administrative or procedural inconvenience cannot override binding legal limitations. The Appellant's failure to even cite the provision under which condonation is sought further demonstrates a lack of legal basis and due diligence.

2. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in light of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal is constrained to hold that the present application is barred by limitation and the delay 

of 47 days in filing the appeal is non-condonable. The application is thus devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, **IA No. 191/2025** is hereby dismissed, accordingly as time barred. Thus, the present appeal is also not maintainable and dismissed in limine.

1. 7. File consigned into record room.

03.07.2025

Sd/- (SHIV KUMAR - I) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, DELHI

This image is a scan of a blank page. The paper has a light beige or cream-colored tint. There are several small, dark specks scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. No text, lines, or other markings are present on the page.