J M FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD vs MS RAGHU PRIME METAL LTD AND ORS on 22 June 2021

1. This Appeal has been taken up upon the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 08.04.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 3341/2021.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant on 01.01.2020 against the order of LD. Recovery Officer, dated 01.04.2019. This appeal has been filed without limitation petition.

3. Arguments were heard on 05.05.2021 on the point of limitation and the matter was fixed for pronouncement of order on the point of limitation on 03.06.2021 and 07.06.2021 but undersigned was on leave and also busy in dictating and pronouncement of judgments in DRT-Allahabad, therefore, the order could not be pronounced on the above dates.

4. Ld. counsel for appellant submitted that the appellant herein filed Misc. Application No. 378/2019

before Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi on 15.08.2019, which was disposed off by Hon'ble DRAT on 29.11.2019 and Hon'ble DRAT, while exercising its powers under Section 17 (A) of the DRT Act, given liberty to file appeal before the Presiding Officer of DRT who also has power of superintendence in relation to the illegal acts of the Recovery Officer. Accordingly, present appeal has been filed on 01.01.2020 for setting aside the order dated 01.04.2019 of the Ld. Recovery Officer under Section 30 (1) read with Section 7 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which is well within time. Ld. counsel for appellant is also relying upon the order passed by Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi in Appeal No. 86/2020 titled as Mamta Udhwani Vs. Indian Overseas Bank wherein Hon'ble Chairperson directed to hold an enquiry against the same Recovery Officer on same state of facts. It is now requested on behalf of Ld. counsel for appellant to condone the delay in filing the present appeal, if any.

5. Sh. Dhananjay Singh, Ld. counsel for Auction Purchaser submitted that he has no objection with regard to limitation, if any.

6. Sh. N.P. Mangla, Ld. counsel for CDs also submitted that he has no objection with regard to limitation. He further submitted that the property- in-question was attached 2 and 1/2 years back which was auctioned/sold, however, amount received from the sale has not been credited in the account of CDs, hence, interest is going on accrued against the CDs. It is also submitted that either the money received from the sale of property-in-question should be credited in the RC or the property-in- question should be released.

7. Considered the rival submissions of all the parties and perused the records.

8. On perusal of ordersheet dated 29.08.2020 of the then Ld. Presiding Officer, it is mentioned in the ordersheet that the limitation is to be considered. Despite that no limitation application has been filed by the appellant herein.

9. In the present matter, appellant herein has filed the present appeal on 01.02.2020 under Section 30 (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, without the limitation petition and prior to this appeal, the appellant herein approached the Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi on 15.08.2019 and filed Misc. Application and Hon'ble DRAT, disposed of the said Misc. Application on 29.11.2019 and thereafter this appeal has been filed on 01.01.2020. Hence, it is clear that appellant herein has approached Hon'ble DRAT after 30-days from the order of Ld. Recovery Officer dated 01.04.2019. Even while filing the present appeal, Ld. counsel for appellant did not bother to file limitation petition along with affidavit. None of the parties has mentioned about the delay of filing the

Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi, furthermore nowhere mentioned in order dated 08.04.2021 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and order dated 29.11.2019 of Hon'ble DRAT, Delhi about the condonation of delay in filing of Appeal. The appeal was filed much beyond the period of limitation of 30-days as prescribed under Section 30 (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 16962 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25815 of 2013) International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others has observed in Para 14 which is reproduced hereinbelow -14. 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 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.-

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that appellant herein has filed this appeal under Section 30 (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the order dated 01.04.2019, passed by Ld. Recovery Officer much beyond the period of limitation, prescribed under DRT Act and in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others (supra), delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned by DRT. Therefore, the prayer of appellant to condone the delay is liable to be dismissed and the appeal filed on behalf of appellant herein is also liable to be dismissed, being time barred.

Order

The prayer for condonation of delay is dismissed and accordingly, Appeal filed by the appellant also is hereby dismissed. No order to costs. File be consigned to records. i 86- : (R. M. Kushawaha) Presiding Officer, DRT, Allahabad Addl. Charge, DRT-III, Delhi (Pronounced through Video Conferencing)