Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
RAMASHANAKR JAMNAPRASAD KESHARWANI THROUGH CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY MR RAJKUMAR G JAISWAL vs BANK OF BARODA on 20 August 2026
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.1, MUMBAI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
In
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 2132 OF 2026
In
APPEAL NO. 08 OF 2026
(Delivered on 20.08.2026)
MR. RAMASHANKAR JAMNAPRASAD KESHARWANI
... Appellants
Versus
BANK OF BARODA & ANR.
... Respondent
Advocate Charles De Souza a/w Adv. Rupak Sawangikar i/b M.S Kalyani Pate for the Appellant.
Advocate Mittal Shroff a/w Adv. Harshita Lohana i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for the Respondent No. 1.
O R D E R
1. The application is filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by Ld. Recovery Officer on 18.11.2025. The petition is opposed by the respondent.
2. The appellant contends that the delay had occurred due to the illness of his counsel which had started a few days from the passing of the order by Ld. Recovery Officer. So the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal is to be condoned.<sup>1</sup>
3. It is seen that the petitioner had initially moved the Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition 22870 of 2026 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court Bombay on 07.07.2026. Further, Section 5 Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 30 Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. Hon'ble Apex Court in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and others had held as follows:
*"The prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of Ld. Recovery Officer, cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of Limitation Act."*
4. So it is seen that DRT cannot entertain delayed appeals under Section 30 RDB Act making the thirty day window absolute. Therefore the present petition to condone the delay of 239 days in filing the appeal cannot be allowed and is dismissed.
5. Petition bearing I.A. no. 2132 of 2026 dismissed. Parties to suffer costs.
(Dictated to my Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me and pronounced in open forum on 20.08.2026)
Date: 20.08.2026
Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai-I (Sreekala Suresh)